Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Radiotherapy Services

Anne Campbell: What action he is taking to reduce the waiting time for radiotherapy treatment following cancer surgery.

Melanie Johnson: We are increasing the numbers of therapy radiographers in post and in training, making better use of existing staff, making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy equipment, and streamlining the patient journey.

Anne Campbell: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on the 10 per cent. reduction in cancer mortality, which is very good news for all cancer patients? In January 2002, when I last asked a question about this issue, I was told that one way of coping with the shortage of radiographers was by using assistant practitioners who are not fully trained as proper radiographers, but can do some of the work. Can my hon. Friend give me any news on how that pilot scheme is going and on whether assistant practitioners will be in general use from now on?

Melanie Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her congratulations on the 10 per cent. reduction, which is in large measure the result not only of a lot of work by staff in the health service, but of the £570 million of extra investment that is going into cancer care.
	On assistant practitioners, my hon. Friend probably knows that her local hospital, Addenbrooke's, has two fully-qualified assistant radiography practitioners in post and three in training, and plans to take on four more next year. I am sure that she is aware that such good practice is being spread across the NHS through the cancer networks and cancer services collaboratives.

Archie Norman: The Minister is of course right that the number of radiographers employed in the NHS has increased, but may I gently suggest that her response is a little complacent? The three-months vacancy rate for radiographers has risen every single year since the data have been collected—now, at 10.7 per cent., it is the highest vacancy rate of any personnel category in the NHS. Is the hon. Lady aware that, in west Kent, in my constituency, it is running at 19.6 per cent? Is not the reality that the growth in demand for technologically advanced radiographers is far outstripping the rate of increase in radiographers coming on supply, and that the result will inevitably be an increase in waiting lists?

Melanie Johnson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data that he advances. Since 1997, we have increased the number of radiographers in post by 10 per cent. from 1,407 to 1,542, and doubled the number of therapy radiographer training places. As a result, many more are coming to serve in the NHS, as I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken: what he is doing is drawing a conclusion about the vacancy levels that is partly based on the fact that there are now more posts and more equipment is coming on stream. We are not complacent, however, and he should understand that we are doing all that we can to ensure that all those posts are filled. Were his party to be in power, it would be extraordinarily difficult to make the investment that we are making, because there would be a 20 per cent. cut—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Michael Clapham.

Michael Clapham: The extra money that the Government have put into cancer treatment is bringing about great improvements, but there has been little improvement in one particular type of cancer—mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. There are reports that treatments have been developed in Australia and America. Will my hon. Friend cause inquiries to be made into the kind of treatment that is being offered, with a view to drawing up a plan for mesothelioma sufferers here?

Melanie Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he has taken a particular interest in this subject for many years, and I commend him for his persistence in pursuing the case with us on every occasion. I certainly undertake to look into the points that he raised and to write to him or meet him to discuss them further.

Julian Brazier: May I urge the Minister to reconsider the so-called ambulatory model for radiotherapy that is being forced on the cancer centre in my constituency? Is she aware that that process has never been successfully used in this country in any cancer centre, and that it is vehemently opposed by all the clinicians in the Kent and Canterbury cancer centre? Is it not the case that that will to all intents and purposes amount to its closure as a true cancer centre, and that it will simply become a satellite working on an untested model?

Melanie Johnson: I will of course look into the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I must evince some scepticism about this. We have made a £570 million extra investment in cancer care, cut premature deaths by 10 per cent. and achieved a 30 per cent. increase in the number of cancer consultants in the service. That does not square with the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman is making.

NHS Dentistry

Paul Keetch: What plans he has to improve the provision of NHS dentistry in Herefordshire.

Rosie Winterton: In the past three years, more than £3 million of revenue and £288,000 of capital has been invested in the Hereford dental access centres. Herefordshire will benefit from the provisions of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which will give new duties to primary care trusts to secure primary dental services, which will be financed by the £1.2 billion currently held centrally. It will also benefit from the £44 million that I announced last month to assist those primary care trusts in which it is hardest to find an NHS dentist.

Paul Keetch: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I pay tribute to the primary care trust access centre and to the local dentists. Does she realise, however, that a recent survey of 20,000 residents in south Herefordshire showed that, of those who were concerned about health care provision, 60 per cent. were particularly concerned about dentistry, compared with only 11 per cent. who were concerned about GP waiting times—the next highest issue? A constituent of mine who came to see me at the weekend has still not found a dentist after two years and makes a 400-mile round trip to Essex to see his old dentist. I appreciate what the Government are doing, but will the Minister agree to talk again to the PCT, and to meet some of my constituents to discuss their very real concerns?

Rosie Winterton: GP waiting times are going down because we are getting quicker access to the GPs. With regard to dentistry, I certainly understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I will ask the NHS support team to work with the NHS locally in Herefordshire to see what assistance can be provided. After those meetings have taken place, I would be more than happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents the conclusions that have been reached.

Bill Wiggin: The trouble is that we do not have enough beds in our hospitals in Herefordshire. We have had complacent answers time and again from the Government about how much money they have spent, yet when we get down on the ground, there is nothing happening. What is the Minister actually going to do for my constituents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about dentistry. I call Mr. Burstow.

Paul Burstow: Does the Minister accept that the position regarding dentistry in Herefordshire is mirrored nationally? In Herefordshire, almost half the population are not registered with a dentist; across the country as a whole, more than half the population are not registered. Indeed, 25 million people are having to find their way to treatment centres that are miles away from their homes. Is this not an indictment of the Government's record on investing in the health service? Have they not failed to put this matter right, and have we as a country not failed, as a consequence, to ensure that we have a comprehensive dental health care service?

Rosie Winterton: We inherited a legacy of underinvestment from the Conservatives. Dentists were walking away from the NHS because of the way in which the Conservatives implemented the contract. However, we recognise that there are still problems. In the longer term, we are going to enable PCTs to work with dentists locally and to do the contracting there, so that they can deal with local problems. At the moment, money is returned to the centre if dentists no longer wish to undertake NHS work; that will now remain locally. However, in the mean time, to assist the NHS support team, we have allocated £43 million to help the areas with the biggest shortages. I believe that that will lead to better provision. I accept that we are not there at the moment, but we are working towards that.

Mental Health Services

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on mental health services.

Rosie Winterton: Mental health services are being modernised in line with the standards set out in the national service framework and the commitments announced in the NHS plan. We are encouraged by the progress made, but we are also aware of the special challenges facing some services.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister not realise that my constituents will see that answer as hopelessly complacent, against the background of the Berkshire Healthcare NHS trust, which looks after the mentally ill in Berkshire, having to make £8.1 million worth of cuts this year in services to the most vulnerable and dependent people in the community? How do I explain to my constituents that, while Ministers claim that more money is going into the NHS, those vulnerable people are going to suffer hugely in the forthcoming year?

Rosie Winterton: Berkshire Healthcare NHS trust has consistently met the key national service framework targets, particularly in the development of a 24-hour service such as crisis resolution. In Bracknell especially, there are gateway workers in place who are key to service improvement for patients. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents how services would be provided after the 20 per cent. cut that his party would institute.

David Hinchliffe: The Government deserve great credit for many of the improvements that are taking place in mental health services, particularly through the national service framework. One of the areas that remains a concern to many in mental health is the role of the special hospitals. In the light of the possibility of mental health legislation coming through in the new Session or the one after that, will there be any chance of reforming the special hospitals and following the various recommendations of numerous reports initiated by the Government themselves and suggesting that we ought to move away from the current model of special hospitals?

Rosie Winterton: I know my hon. Friend has great expertise, particularly in the issue of mental health as well as in wider health issues. Of course, a number of changes in the way in which the special hospitals operate have been made in recent years. We are looking at the reports that have come forward, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure that the special hospitals meet the needs of the 21st century. If that requires further changes to be made, of course we will do that.

Tim Loughton: The Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) was exceedingly complacent; for "challenges" read "failure"—what the Government have failed to achieve so far. In 2000, the NHS plan gave a commitment to establish 335 crisis resolution teams by 2003, with 24-hour access by 2004. Our recent survey revealed that over 38 per cent. of mental health trusts do not have crisis resolution teams, over 50 per cent. do not offer 24-hour access and very few have anything like a full complement of staff in any case.
	Will the Minister give us an update on when that pledge will be met, or is it another empty promise that is to be shelved? Will she also tell us why there has been a loss of 4,000 mental health beds since her Government came to power?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. There have been significant steps to support the delivery of national targets through the National Institute for Mental Health in England. There are now more than 100 crisis resolution teams and more than 200 assertive outreach teams in place. Progress is being made on the targets for early intervention schemes. We know that £262 million extra was spent on mental health services last year.
	I ask the hon. Gentleman to pledge that he will continue the investment that this Government have put in. We are improving mental health services; his party would cut them.

Jack Cunningham: Will the Minister look very closely at any conclusions that emerge from the mental health and learning disability review consultation which has just concluded in north and west Cumbria? May I join the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), in welcoming the Government's determination to commit additional resources to mental health service provision—a decision that is long overdue and was never taken by the Conservative party in government? Is the Minister aware, and will she accept, that it is unacceptable in west Cumbria for crisis and acute bed provision to be removed and located in the centres to which my hon. Friend referred earlier? That is a backward step. We need care and provision in the community, not centralisation of those services.

Rosie Winterton: I am aware that my right hon. Friend has expressed concern about that situation on behalf of his constituents and that he is meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), to discuss the proposed changes, the consultation and the real anxieties that he and his constituents have raised.

Hywel Williams: Anti-oppressive practice is central to mental health services, and to the Mental Health Act 1983. It was, however, conspicuously absent from the Government's legislative proposals last year. Can the Minister assure us that in any future legislation linguistically appropriate practice will be given due regard, particularly in Wales?

Rosie Winterton: The 1983 Act does of course need to be updated to provide more safeguards for patients, and to take account of public safety issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking on board comments made during the consultation, and that we will publish a Bill when parliamentary time allows.

Nutrition (Children)

Helen Jones: What recent discussions he has held on the links between diet and health in children; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Ladyman: The impact of diet on health is recognised, and we are committed to improving children's dietary intakes. Ministers regularly meet other Government Departments and external organisations to achieve that. Discussion to develop the Department of Health led food and health action plan will enable further action to be taken by all stakeholders.

Helen Jones: I congratulate the Government on what they have already done, but in view of increasing evidence of poor diet among children, the likely effects on their health and the consequent likely demands on the health service, will my hon. Friend liaise with the Department for Education and Skills to establish how we might improve both the standard and the take-up of school meals? We need to send children a consistent message, and—as well as launching welcome initiatives such as the welcome fruit in schools initiative—ensure that they are given a healthy meal at lunchtime.

Stephen Ladyman: I thank my hon. Friend for her positive comments about the progress we have already made, especially with the fruit in schools programme. We do need to work closely with the Department for Education and Skills, and we are doing so. The food in schools programme, which is intended to provide healthy dietary options, is a joint initiative from that Department and the Department of Health. Ultimately, however, we must set ourselves a target. School meals must meet three criteria: they must be healthy, tasty and affordable. We are the first to admit that we have not achieved those standards everywhere yet, but we shall certainly be working on it.

Jenny Tonge: Is the Minister aware of alarming reports from the medical profession about an increase in rickets caused by vitamin D deficiency? What plans, strategies or programmes exist for investigation of this serious matter? Has the Minister, for instance, any plans to legislate for compulsory cod liver oil?

Stephen Ladyman: I would welcome inclusion of that proposal in the next Liberal Democrat election manifesto. I suspect that it would win us a few more votes.
	The hon. Lady is right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Melanie Johnson), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who deals with this subject, is aware of the issues that she has raised. We are working on a number of initiatives, including the fruit in schools and food in schools programmes to ensure that all children have a healthy and balanced diet. The evidence mentioned by the hon. Lady will be fed into that process.

Andy Reed: I recognise that many programmes and initiatives are emerging, especially in schools, but parents such as me and, I am sure, many other Members are concerned about the difficulty of ensuring that our children are not exposed to advertising and other means of forcing unhealthy foods down them. We try our hardest, but is there a possibility that a link with physical education and activity in schools would begin to make people understand we need to tackle problems of obesity now rather than later?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right—we must take an holistic view. It is a question not just of diet but of exercise, education and making sure that our children know what foods are healthy and how to create a balanced diet for themselves. On exposing children to undue influences, evidence from Strathclyde university, commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, shows that children are influenced by negative messages from TV advertising, for example. We are considering that evidence and we have an open mind as to how we shall deal with it in the future; however, my hon. Friend can be assured that we are going to deal with it.

Simon Burns: Is the Minister aware that 13 per cent. of eight-year-olds and 17 per cent. of 15-year-olds are clinically obese, and does he share my concern about the dramatic increase in type 2 diabetes among young children? I recognise that the message that people, including children, should eat more fruit and vegetables is welcome, but does the Minister not accept that exercise is a crucial part of the equation in reducing these trends? Will he suggest to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills that more should be done to encourage more exercise, particularly in our schools?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is right, but he obviously needs to wash his ears out because I just said exactly that. Exercise is vital and we must look at these issues holistically. On discussions with the Department for Education and Skills, the food and health action plan, which I mentioned in answering the first question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), is a cross-Departmental initiative that is working on all these issues and taking an holistic view of the health of our children.

General Practice

Simon Hughes: What assessment he has made of (a) the availability of and (b) access to general practitioner services in Greater London.

John Hutton: The number of GPs, and the number of GPs in training, in London are currently at the highest recorded levels, helping more patients to be seen more quickly. Primary care trusts in London are also committed to further increases in the number of GPs and primary care professionals, which will help further to improve access to, and availability of, primary care services. Primary care in London will also benefit from £350 million-worth of capital investment in the next two years.

Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a broad-ranging survey over the summer showed that more than one third of GP surgeries had closed their lists to new patients, and that more than half had closed their lists in the previous 12 months? As a result, thousands of people in London cannot get on to a GP list on a given day. What does the Minister propose to do to improve that situation substantially and quickly, and is there a target date—a number of days—by which somebody who wants to register on a GP's list can be sure that they will have a doctor to go to?

John Hutton: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, my understanding was that his party was against new targets of any kind for the national health service; perhaps he needs to talk to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) about that. I accept that his first point constitutes a serious and genuine concern, but I should point out that existing arrangements do permit a primary care trust, in some circumstances, to allocate a patient, or group of patients, to practices. Although everyone accepts that that is not ideal, it is possible to get an appointment with a GP through that route if it is the last one available. Secondly, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the general medical services contract that we have concluded with the British Medical Association provides a new mechanism for dealing with precisely such issues, which I hope will prevent some of the situations that he describes from arising as frequently in future. I accept that, clearly, there are capacity constraints, and measures are in hand to deal with that. The arrangements under the new GMS contract will provide a further strengthening of those measures.

Maternity Services

Doug Naysmith: What plans he has to increase choice in the provision of maternity services.

John Reid: My Department is conducting an extensive consultation on what patients want in terms of choice and involvement in, and flexibility of, their care and treatment. Maternity services are a key theme of this consultation.

Doug Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I hope that he has had a chance to look at the Health Committee's reports on maternity services, which were published earlier this year. One of our recommendations was that the ability should exist to be referred to midwifery services by a midwife, rather than through the GP services. I should be grateful if he would outline what the Department intends to do to encourage that.

John Reid: It is true that choice becomes substantial choice only if capacity is increased and investment to increase that capacity is made. That is the difference between our policy and the theoretical and cruelly deceptive choice that is offered by others to benefit only a tiny minority of people. We have therefore increased capacity through investment, resources and training in order to give women a real choice over maternity services. For instance, I understand that in my hon. Friend's area in Bristol, a number of midwives have proposed a midwife-led unit as an alternative to traditional hospital-based maternity services, and the primary care trust is now actively considering that option. We aim for the NHS to provide maternity services that offer women a variety of options through which they can receive care during their pregnancy and where they give birth.

Richard Taylor: What plans does the Secretary of State have to deal with the shortage of midwives, which risks curtailing choice for patients and specifically curtailing the midwife-led birth centres that he mentioned? I would be grateful to know that he attaches a great deal of importance to such midwife-led centres and I hope that, because of the shortage of midwives, he will protect them from attacks by the consultant-led obstetrics units.

John Reid: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is crucial that we do not allow any vested interest to stand in the way of better-quality, quicker and better service and more choice for patients. When I say that, I mean any vested interests within the NHS or any vested interests from outside that want to undermine it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I will make sure that we protect and help to prosper the midwife-led opportunities.
	On the first part of the question, we have an expectation that, from a baseline of the year 2000, more than 2,000 extra midwives will be working in the wards by 2006. As the hon. Gentleman may already know, in September last year, there were 870 more midwives working in the wards than when we took power in 1997. It is not easy, but we are putting in the investment to attract people back. It would be a disaster if we had cuts in investment on the scale envisaged by the so-called Opposition.

Ivan Henderson: May I tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents welcome the news that Harwich is going to get a new community hospital, which includes a new maternity unit? That will continue to give my constituents a choice about where to give birth in their local community. However, at the moment, the existing maternity unit is temporarily closed because of the shortage of midwives. To ensure that the new hospital and new maternity unit is a success, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that we recruit, retain and encourage midwives back into the profession? We want the investment to make an improvement, which counters the suggestions of failure from Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Simon Burns: It's closed.

John Reid: Despite the baying from Conservative Front Benchers, that is a helpful question because it is important to have an honest appraisal of where we are with the health service. It is light years better than the health service that we inherited from the crowd on the Opposition Benches, but we still have a long way to go—[Interruption.] I can do no better than quote Professor Mike Salmon, chairman of the Essex Rivers Health Care NHS trust. When the Government gave the go-ahead in 2001 to the project mentioned by my hon. Friend, he said:
	"This is the best local health news since the creation of the NHS itself in 1948".
	It is certainly much better news than anything that appeared during the near 20-year reign of the crowd opposite. Nevertheless, we have a great deal more to do to attract more midwives. We are increasing the number of training places and there are now 470 more than in 1996–97—an increase of 28 per cent. We are also taking a range of further actions to help recruitment. All of that would be put in peril by the massive cuts in investment proposed by Conservative Members.

James Gray: It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State allowed some party political banter to creep into what had until then been the helpful answer that he was determined to put women's interests first when deciding on maternity services. Will he bring his influence to bear on the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority, which is currently consulting on closing down maternity services in Trowbridge, Devizes and Malmesbury?

John Reid: I do not understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question. My God, if in the context of the biggest annual increase in the NHS for the longest period in history, he is keen to point out to us where difficulties occur, what will he do when there is a 20 per cent. cut in that investment?

James Gray: That is no answer. What a disgrace. Get back to Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not say too much about Scotland. He knows where I come from and it is not so long ago that he lived in my constituency.

General Practice

Peter Pike: What additional funding his Department is making available for the improvement in the (a) premises and (b) facilities available at general practitioners' surgeries in England.

John Hutton: The Government are committed to investment of £1 billion by 2004 in improving primary care premises and facilities through NHS LIFT—local improvement finance trust—and other investment routes. The NHS LIFT scheme in east Lancashire, which I was able to visit last Friday, has reached financial close and work has now started on the first of several new developments, which will include my hon. Friend's constituency.

Peter Pike: As my hon. Friend mentioned, he was in Bacup last week and he will know that many surgeries in my constituency do not meet the standards for primary care in GPs' surgeries that the Government want to deliver in 2003. Does he believe that the LIFT programme and what Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust is doing will ensure that we have such facilities, and will they be value for money?

John Hutton: I do believe that. As my hon. Friend knows, the primary care trust has started with three developments initially, in Bacup, Nelson and Darwen. I understand that GPs in his constituency will be in the second tranche of development and I hope that that will proceed as soon as possible. I agree with him that it is desperately important that we improve the primary care estate in the NHS. It is where 90 per cent. of all patient journeys begin and end and, as GPs would themselves acknowledge, it is true that many surgeries are not up to scratch. They are not capable of delivering modern, 21st-century health care. That is why we are making a record investment in primary care, and there is no more pressing case than my hon. Friend's constituency.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister direct some of the additional funding for primary care to areas where GP lists are well above the national average, such as in my constituency, or will he continue to be a party to the fiddling of formulae that will continue the crisis in public service provision in the south-east of England?

John Hutton: No, we do not fiddle any formulae. Health spending is directed to the areas of greatest need. That is precisely the methodology we use to distribute money across the national health service. The hon. Gentleman has recently had something of a reputation for espousing the causes of the vulnerable. I imagine that that is why he is especially pleased to see what has happened to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who must surely now be included on a list of the vulnerable. There are 42 LIFT schemes across the country and I am more than happy to send the hon. Gentleman details of them so that he can judge for himself whether the figures have been fiddled, as he alleges.

Alan Simpson: There is overwhelming public support for the Government investment programme in the renewal of GP facilities, but will the Minister look carefully at the value-for-money aspect? The first of the LIFT proposals in my constituency includes plans for a £5 million health centre that will be rented back to the NHS at a cost of £25 million, an effective interest rate of more than 20 per cent. I asked some of the high street building societies what they would charge me for a mortgage to build it myself and discovered that it would cost £8 million. Can the Minister look carefully at the long-term costs and constraints imposed on LIFT companies to ensure that we get the modern facilities that we need but not at the Barclaycard interest rates that we do not?

John Hutton: NHS LIFT schemes do represent value for money. I understand that my hon. Friend has an ideological opposition to involving the private sector in the construction of NHS facilities. I respect that, but I profoundly disagree with him about the implications for NHS LIFT. All NHS LIFT schemes must pass a value-for-money test, and they do so. However, I can tell my hon. Friend and anyone else who is worried about the matter that the priority is to get the investment in place so that primary care facilities for NHS patients can be renewed. NHS LIFT represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a significant and real difference to the improvement of primary care facilities in my hon. Friend's constituency, and in the constituencies of hon. Members of all parties. That should be our priority.

Diagnostic Testing

David Laws: What progress has been made in reducing the waiting times for diagnostic testing.

John Hutton: The NHS is committed to reducing the length of time that people wait before their treatment starts. The NHS plan has set targets for staged reductions in waiting times for first out-patient appointments and for in-patient treatment, which will help contribute towards reducing waiting times for diagnostic testing. By the end of 2005, patients with suspected cancer, for example, will be guaranteed that their treatment will start within two months of being urgently referred.

David Laws: Does not the Minister recognise that some of the longest waiting times in the NHS are not for in-patient and out-patient appointments, but for diagnostic tests? Is it satisfactory that the Government are not publishing information that would allow us to judge what is happening to those waiting times? Will the Minister take up the suggestion by the independent Statistics Commission that the Government should publish the waiting times for diagnostic tests? That would allow us to see how long people wait for all aspects of NHS treatment.

John Hutton: We shall certainly look carefully at all the recommendations made to us. Of course we want to reduce the length of time that patients have to wait before their diagnostic tests start, and before they get the results. That is obvious. We have made an important start in relation to cancer, about which people have the greatest anxiety. That will help to reduce the length of time that people have to wait for diagnostic services. However, Liberal Democrat Members are the least able to lecture the Government about waiting times, as they are against any waiting times targets whatsoever.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although good progress is being made in relation to work with cancer in my NHS trust in Coventry, the difficulties posed by coronary problems are of similar dimensions? A surgeon in my area has been suspended for nearly two years, at a cost of some several hundred thousand pounds. Could not he be reinstated? Will my hon. Friend take a personal interest in this matter and ensure that a fair compromise proposal that would get the surgeon back to work and reduce waiting times is agreed, with both sides dropping charges and no blame being apportioned?

John Hutton: I am aware of that case, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who is responsible for public health, answered an Adjournment debate on it only recently in this House. Such matters are for the local trust to resolve, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that they are dealt with as quickly as possible. He will be aware that the National Clinical Assessment Authority has recently been in touch with the trust, to see what further progress can be made in relation to that dispute. I very much hope that progress can be made as quickly as possible.

Henry Bellingham: Can the Minister confirm the story that appeared in this morning's press that No. 10 intervened to ensure that Dr. Lee Kuan Yew's wife had her diagnostic treatment speeded up? Is that a proper way for No. 10 to behave? If No.10 is able to secure preferential treatment for the wife of a visiting dignitary, why can it not intervene to ensure that no one has to wait for life-threatening periods for vital scans?

John Hutton: No, I think that the position in relation to that case has been made clear already by a spokesperson for No. 10.

General Practice

Kali Mountford: How many general practitioners are in training; and if he will make a statement.

John Reid: There were 2,157 general practitioner trainees in June 2003. That is an increase of 814 since 1997, and the highest number ever in the history of this country. We promised more GPs, and we have kept that promise.

Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and for his efforts in ensuring that general practice is an attractive option for trainee doctors. In my constituency, however, one GP vacancy was advertised for 18 months before being filled. As we approach the winter months, everyone is more acutely aware than ever of the need for GPs. Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts with the royal colleges and the British Medical Association to improve capacity yet further?

John Reid: Yes, I shall certainly do as my hon. Friend suggests. The truth of the matter is that we have achieved our initial trainee target ahead of schedule; as I said, there were 2,157 GP trainees as of June this year—the highest number ever recorded. However, there is no doubt in my mind that we need to achieve a great deal more than that, not least because of the underinvestment during the 20 years before the Government took office. To point that out is not to make a party-partisan point, because every one of the 1.3 million people in the NHS and the 60 million people of this country knows the truth: the NHS was starved of investment. That is why, in a paradoxical fashion, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have the highest number of doctors in history, yet the number is still insufficient, because we are making up for the lost decades under the Conservatives.

Liam Fox: When the Prime Minister talks about public services, he says that it is about schools and hospitals. What message does that send to those who work in primary care, who deliver the majority of health care?

John Reid: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman both on his incipient move and on actually asking me a question? Since I became Secretary of State, that is the first time—

Simon Burns: Rubbish.

John Reid: It is the first time since I became Secretary of State that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has fulminated inside the Chamber rather than outside it.
	As for what we said we would do, we did not say only that we would build more schools and hospitals, although that is true. We said that we would create more doctors and that we would have more nurses and more midwives. We said that we would have shorter waiting times, that we would put in more money and more hospital equipment, and that we would build more hospitals and buildings than ever before in the NHS. I am glad to say that we have done each and every one of those things. There are 55,000 more nurses, ahead of target. We have 6,500 more consultants and thousands more doctors—more than ever—and the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS. We have the biggest sustained investment increase, at 7.4 per cent. in real terms, for the longest period in our history. We made the promises and we kept the promises, yet every one of them would be destroyed by the Opposition and their plans to cut back on the national health service.

Liam Fox: That was an interesting answer, but not to the question that I asked. My question was about what Government soundbites tell us about their approach to the acute sector in relation to the community sector. There is poor morale in primary care, so let us see whether the Secretary of State can actually answer me in detail. One in six doctors currently in general practice graduated from a south Asian university; two thirds of them will retire by 2007. How many extra doctors will be required to fill those posts? A recent study by the British Medical Association found that 20 per cent. of all GP time is taken up by administration. How many doctors does that effectively take away from patient care? According to the Government's figures, the number of doctors per thousand patients has gone down since 1997, not up. When will the Secretary of State answer the real questions instead of giving us soundbites, statistics and complacency?

John Reid: Well, if ever I heard a soundbite it was "soundbites, statistics and complacency", which does not quite match "Veni, vidi, vici" in the resonance of historical sweep. When the hon. Gentleman asked his question, he implied that we had merely promised more "schools and hospitals". That was his first soundbite, so he did not like being told about more doctors, more nurses and more midwives. Of course—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I will, therefore, answer the questions. We have more doctors than ever in history. We have recruited some of them from overseas, not least because under the crowd on the Opposition Benches all the investment in doctor training was run down, unlike the situation under the Labour Government. In primary care, we have—[Interruption.] The Opposition can bay as much as they like; the truth is that we all know that all the increases in primary care, public health, secondary care, chronic care and care for the elderly would be destroyed by their reduction in investment and their criminal plans to charge our old folk up to £10,000 for their—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Joan Walley: May I say that my constituents are not interested in the soundbites that come from the Opposition? What they are interested in is being able to see a GP when they need to. Although I applaud the extra 814 GPs that are in training, may I tell my right hon. Friend that there is a serious short-term problem? We have had too many GPs retiring, and we need to attract more into part-time work. We need to ensure that we can deal with the immediate emergency crisis that we have, certainly in Stoke-on-Trent. Will he look at that and consider how the Government can support what the Stoke-on-Trent, North PCT is doing at the moment?

John Reid: Yes, I will certainly look at that, and I do not for a moment underestimate the challenge, even with the record number of doctors that we have. I have already said that, because of expansion, retirement, past under-investment and other factors, there is a huge problem and we need to recruit even more. That is why, although we are on course to deliver our target of 2,000 extra GPs, we need to do more. There has been an unprecedented expansion in medical school places in England: 2,150 more places were announced between 1999 and 2001, so that increase will contribute to the future number of GPs.
	In addition, we are expanding our health service at a rate that is unprecedented in the past three decades, and people's expectations and ambitions are becoming greater. People now expect to see a GP within two days; they do not want to wait. People expect to have their operations a lot more quickly than when the Conservatives contemplated, as they said, a maximum waiting time of two years. We now have virtually no one waiting more than one year, and, by next year, virtually no one will be waiting more than six months. That will still be too long. We need more doctors, more nurses and more facilities in the NHS, all of which needs more investment. That is precisely what we will do, compared with the Conservative party.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the improvement. How many of the university posts that have been opened actually spring from a decision taken many years previously? I discovered that universities that were supposed to be opening more places for medical training were not doing so. How many training posts have not been occupied by young people who want to become GPs? Such vacancies have been one of the standing failures of our medical training for many years.

John Reid: On the first question, frankly, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the answer off the top of my head, but I will write to him about that. On the second point, if I understood the question, he was implying that the great demand for places at medical schools or universities was not being met because such places were not available. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have carried out the most rapid expansion in places. We have four new medical schools, for instance. I visited one of them only a couple of weeks ago, welcoming another 120 young people coming in to train as doctors. A greater problem than the lack of places is the fact that there are cyclical trends. Sometimes large numbers of people who train as doctors choose to go into general practice and, at other times, they do not choose to do so. We are attempting to attract more people into general practice, not least through the recent new contract, which gives opportunity and flexibility to GPs and was overwhelmingly accepted by the profession itself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have five minutes left, and we are only at Question 9 on the Order Paper. The next time that we have Health questions, I do not want the record to be full of what the Opposition did when they were in power. Questions should be answered briefly, and that is the end of it.

Premature Deaths

George Foulkes: What his latest estimate is of the number of premature deaths in England in the last year for which figures are available; and what action he is taking to prevent them.

Melanie Johnson: In 1995, an estimated 98,800 people died from smoking in England. We have developed a comprehensive strategy, including legislation banning tobacco advertising, a mass media information campaign and a national network of NHS stop smoking services. Early figures, published by Cancer Research UK, indicate an encouraging drop in smoking prevalence, but we are awaiting publication of the latest general household survey data for confirmation.

George Foulkes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on realising that I meant to refer to premature deaths from smoking in my question. Will she join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Health on having given up smoking for 11 months? What are she and her colleagues doing to encourage other people to follow his example? Will the Government now consider introducing legislation to ban smoking in public places?

Melanie Johnson: Of course I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the Secretary of State on his period of abstinence from tobacco. To share the progress that we are making on services to stop smoking, across England £138 million has now been allocated over the next three years to help reach the target of achieving 800,000 four-week quitters by 2006. The latest statistics show that we are on target, and around 124,000 people had given up smoking at the four-week follow-up quit stage. He mentioned the question of smoking in public places; he will know that we have considered the matter, but believe that substantial progress can be made through voluntary means.

Chris Grayling: The Minister talks about premature deaths. Is she aware, however, that people's lives are being put at risk today by the mounting crisis in emergency care? We have the unedifying sight of queues of ambulances outside accident and emergency departments unable to get patients admitted to hospitals, and the extraordinary situation in which ambulance trusts have contingency plans to erect tents outside accident and emergency departments for patients, because they cannot get them admitted to hospitals. When will Ministers do something to end this appalling situation?

Melanie Johnson: That is absolute poppycock; what is more, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is. The fact is that nine out of 10 patients are seen within four hours in A and E departments across England, and, to the best of our knowledge, tents have never been used and are unlikely to be needed other than for dealing with patients at the scene of a major incident such as the Selby rail incident or the decontamination of patients in the event of a chemical or biological attack. The Opposition are trying to get up a story that is 100 per cent. spin and zero per cent. truth.

Nurses (International Recruitment)

Phyllis Starkey: What proportion of nurses working in the NHS have been internationally recruited.

Rosie Winterton: As at September 2002, the number of nurses employed by the NHS was 367,520. In the years 1999 to 2002, 33,000 non-European Community nurses registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. However, not all of those nurses will currently be working in the NHS.

Phyllis Starkey: I welcome the fact that the NHS has a code of conduct about recruiting nurses from countries where recruitment would otherwise affect health services in those countries. The private sector in hospitals, nursing homes and care homes, however, does not exercise similar restraint. I ask the Minister to look carefully at ways in which the private sector can be made to adhere to the same code of conduct, and if necessary to have discussions with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the private sector in this country is not pillaging health services abroad in countries where those health staff are needed much more than here.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which we take very seriously, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a number of discussions about it. There is a limit to the control that we can exert on the private sector, but we have made it absolutely clear that agencies that recruit nurses for the private sector contrary to the NHS code of conduct will not be allowed to recruit nurses for the national health service. That lever is available to us. In addition, some measures can be taken by the Department of Trade and Industry if, for example, agencies charge an exorbitant fee to nurses for recruitment. Our Departments are continuing to work closely on that matter.

Hip Replacement Operations

Siobhain McDonagh: What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of a hip replacement operation (a) in an NHS hospital and (b) in a private hospital.

John Reid: The most recent estimate of the cost to the NHS of a hip replacement in an NHS hospital is £4,356. BUPA currently advertises an inclusive care price for a hip replacement as being within the range £7,150 to £8,900.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the way to tackle hip and knee replacement waiting lists is through exciting projects such as the south-west London hip and knee centre rather than by subsidising the private sector, as the Conservative party would do?

John Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The south-west London NHS treatment centre for hips and knees in Epsom that will open in January will benefit her constituents and those of other hon. Members. It is planned that the centre will have the capacity to treat some 3,150 orthopaedic cases in the 12 months to the end of September. She is absolutely right, and I make it absolutely plain, that the Labour party, which is the only party for which I can speak, will never force old folks to be charged out of their savings to pay for their own operations.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: As the House will know, next Tuesday is 11 November—Remembrance day. Although the House will not be sitting at 11 o'clock, right hon. and hon. Members, their staff and officials in the House will be attending to their duties.
	I regard it as appropriate that we should join the nation in observing the two minutes' silence at that time so that we might remember those who gave their lives for their country to help to preserve our democratic freedom.
	I should be grateful if those responsible for chairing Committees would make appropriate arrangements. Instructions will also be issued to heads of departments so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two minutes' silence should be enabled to do so.

Points of Order

Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful to receive your guidance on a matter than arose during Health questions today. I asked the Minister of State about an article in today's press concerning Dr. Lee Kuan Yew's wife receiving preferential treatment—it was a big story. He merely said that a Department of Health spokesman had issued a statement this morning. I did not hear that statement, and I do not believe that anyone else did. Surely he should have given me a proper answer. His answer was bland and arrogant.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Chair to be concerned with the quality of the answer; that is for the Minister.

Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. I do not want an extension of Question Time. I would far rather that we got down the Order Paper at Question Time rather than taking questions at points of order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking about Question Time?

Crispin Blunt: It is further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister specifically said that the No. 10 press office had made an explanation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I knew that it was not a proper point of order.

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that I am not an infrequent questioner of various Departments in the House in both oral and written form. It was therefore disappointing that in the answer that I received to a written question to the Solicitor-General, not only was my name mis-spelt, but I was referred to as the hon. Member for Buckingham. Regular attendees of the Chamber and right hon. and hon. Members will know that there are clear differences between my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and myself. I wonder whether the record could be corrected.

Mr. Speaker: I can only say to the hon. Lady that I would never make that mistake.

John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I am full of admiration for my hon. Friend's remarkable political talents, may I put it to you that I do not think that my constituents would make that mistake either? I would be very alarmed if Ministers thought that I was the Member of Parliament for the Vale of York.

Mr. Speaker: I say no more.

Children's Television (Advertising) (No. 2)

Debra Shipley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the advertising of high fat, high sugar and high salt content food and drinks during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling.
	Since I introduced my Bill to ban all food and drink advertising to pre-school children in May this year, I have been overwhelmed by massive public and professional support. Indeed, 95 per cent. of students from King Edward VI college in my constituency—some of whom are in the Gallery today—support me, so I have the support of young people as well.
	Some 89 organisations now back my campaign. They include the National Heart Forum, the Food Commission, the National Union of Teachers, Diabetes UK, the Women's Institute, the National Consumer Council, the British Heart Foundation and the National Obesity Forum. Those well-respected organisations, which have a wide range of members, back my campaign because they recognise that we have a serious health problem, with increasing childhood diabetes and obesity, both of which can kill. The organisations backing my campaign to ban food and drink advertising to children recognise that the continuous advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content food and drink to children has an impact on their health.
	Early this year, I took my concerns to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whose Department has the powers to prevent the products from being ruthlessly targeted at children via television. She asked me to give her more evidence. I gave her more evidence. She asked me to wait for the results of the findings of the Food Standards Agency. The FSA has published its report, "Does Food Promotion Influence Children? A Systematic Review of the Evidence". It reviewed 118 research papers and concluded that advertising to children does have an effect on their preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption.
	To put it simply, children are subjected to repeated imagery and carefully constructed memorable jingles. The message is that the products are fun and make children happy. Children repeatedly see adverts in which happy children are being made happy by happy parents giving them food and drink products that are high in fat, high in salt and high in sugar. For example, 89 per cent. of cereals advertised during children's television programmes are very high in sugar.
	The sugar content of Quaker Sugar Puffs is a massive 49 per cent. It is 39 per cent. in Kellogg's Cocoa Pops, 40 per cent. in Kellogg's Frosties and 40 per cent. in Nestlé Golden Nuggets. The FSA guidelines say that products that are 10 per cent. sugar are high in sugar. The World Health Organisation recently suggested that people should restrict sugar to 10 per cent. of their diet for the sake of their health, yet the powerful food and drink industry is allowed ruthlessly and cynically to target small children with products that contain an amount of sugar way above what is good for their health.
	It is worth remembering that children are encouraged to eat cereals every day. The fast food industry also ruthlessly targets children with adverts that encourage them to want to make multiple visits to a particular chain of fast food outlets to collect parts of a toy. Parents are not made aware of the fact that, for example, a birthday party meal, which is indisputably targeted at children, contains 60 per cent. of the maximum total recommended daily intake of saturated fat, nearly 80 per cent. more sugar than the maximum total recommended daily intake and more than one day's full recommended intake of salt. That is just in one meal.
	The amount of salt a child should eat depends on the child's age. A two or three-year-old should take in about 2 g daily and a four, five or six-year-old about 3 g. It is therefore shocking that a product such as Golden Vale Cheese Company Attack-a-Snack Cheestring chicken wrap—yes, that is its name—which is repeatedly advertised on children's television, contains 4 g in a single portion, more than a child should have in a whole day.
	I began by saying that I have received massive support for my proposals from teachers, health professionals, parents, colleagues and young people, yet the food and drink industry and the advertising industry continue to fail to recognise that there is a problem. They say that advertising high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content products designed specifically for children has no detrimental effects on children's health, yet the overwhelming evidence suggests the contrary.
	The advertising industry says that this is not its problem, that advertisers are just a convenient target for politicians such as myself. The industry says that obesity and childhood diabetes are due to children not taking enough exercise. I certainly agree that regular exercise is vital to children's health, but so too is what they put in their mouths. Far from being an easy target for politicians, the massively powerful, multinational food and drink industry is able to employ well placed and well paid lobbyists.
	As a nation, however, we have to put our children's health first. There are many steps that need to be taken. Children need to take more exercise, and better education is needed for both parents and children. The Department of Health has taken good initiatives in its healthy eating campaign and by providing free fruit in schools. Those initiatives are, however, severely undermined by the spending power of the food and drink industry, which is able to spend up to 100 times more promoting its high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt products than the Government spend on their healthy eating campaigns.
	Independent Television Commission guidance has failed to prevent the advertising industry from ruthlessly targeting children, and Ofcom's recent suggestion that the industry should be self-policing would demonstrably be ineffective. What is needed is legislation. We need to ban the advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt food and drink on children's television. My Bill would do exactly that. However, owing to the procedures of the House or a lack of parliamentary time, my Bill may fail to become law, and I call on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to support the Department of Health initiatives and protect children's health by doing what public opinion is overwhelmingly calling for: banning the advertising of food and drink from children's television scheduling.
	I commend my Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Linda Perham, Vera Baird, Ann Clwyd, Dr. Brian Iddon, Glenda Jackson, Brian White, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Geraint Davies, Andrew Mackinlay and Angela Eagle.

Children's Television (Advertising) (No. 2)

Ms Debra Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to ban the advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content food and drinks during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 171].

Quality of Life

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

Yvette Cooper: I am pleased to open the debate on quality of life in local communities. The issues involved affect everyone in each of our constituencies. People open their front door, step out on to the street and care about the world around them and the issues that they face. Many of those issues have been ignored by politicians and policy makers because they were seen as being simply about the private realm—local matters for individuals to sort out for themselves.
	We ignore those issues at our peril. They cut across many different communities, Departments and agencies, and they manifest themselves in different forms in different areas. MORI has done research in recent years into what makes somewhere a good place to live. It found that 56 per cent. of people were concerned about low-level crime; 39 per cent. pointed to health services as the most important factor; 37 per cent. referred to affordable, decent housing, and 28 per cent. said that shops were most important.
	Interestingly, however, all those factors ranked higher than job prospects, local schools and facilities for children. People's impression of their quality of life is affected by their sense of belonging and pride in their area, not only their town, town centre or city but their own neighbourhood, their estate or the place where they live. MORI provided evidence that many people who thought that they lived in a fantastic, bubbling and buzzing city feared that they lived on a problem estate and were not proud of the street where they lived.
	MORI also looked at issues affecting communities in different parts of the country. People surveyed in north Kensington said that the things that would most improve their quality of life were a reduction in crime and more activities for young people. In Southwark, the highest priorities were cleaner streets and the environment, followed by facilities for young people. In Dorset, the priority was housing, followed by buses. In Southend, people mentioned dog mess, followed by buses. In Seven Sisters, the priority was crime and litter, and in Hartlepool it was better play areas for children. People care strongly about the quality of their local environment and the strength of their local communities. That is about more than simply housing or their private circumstances—it is about the world and the community around them.

Henry Bellingham: I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the different communities that contributed to the MORI poll. Does she agree that communities can be badly blighted by planning? She mentioned Dorset, where there is a lot of grief about proposals for wind farms, as indeed there is in my own constituency. Does she agree that local people need to have more say in key planning applications that will blight their communities and affect them in other ways?

Yvette Cooper: People often have strong views about planning. We are keen that the planning system should do two things. First, it should have a stronger sense of sustainable development in future instead of focusing on short-term planning issues. Secondly, it should involve local people from the very beginning of the planning process, rather than at a late stage, when a particular application comes up. We shall shortly publish the first draft planning policy statement—PPS1—which sets out the broad direction of planning, and will publish further statements on planning and renewable energy. I am happy to have further discussions with the hon. Gentleman about those issues.

Frank Field: I very much welcome today's debate. The Minister has cited MORI's findings, but has she not found from her own experience as a constituency Member of Parliament that one of the dominating issues for all of us is the continued rise of bad behaviour? While there are many positive aspects of Government policy involving job creation and so on, when we meet our constituents or have public meetings, the big issue that they want the Government to deal with is bad behaviour. We are now in a new era of the politics of behaviour.

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right that many people in our constituencies have concerns about antisocial behaviour. I shall discuss the issue shortly, so if he will allow me, I shall come back to his question then.
	Another issue that we need to be aware of is the existence of considerable inequalities. The most deprived areas tend to have the fewest parks and well-maintained places in which children can play. They tend to have the greatest problems with graffiti, litter and antisocial behaviour. They also have the greatest design problems. I recently stood on a hillside with a fellow MP looking at the fantastic scenery in his constituency. The only thing that blighted the beautiful view was, he pointed out, a severe and stark set of buildings on an estate. They were grey and austere, and clearly had the greatest design problems in the constituency. When I pointed to the estate he said, "Yes, that estate also has the greatest problems in the constituency." Poor design, therefore, is often linked to the most disadvantaged areas.

Matthew Green: The Minister seems to be hinting that the most deprived areas are all urban. Will she confirm that some of the most rural areas are also some of the most deprived?

Yvette Cooper: In looking at the estate that I have mentioned, I was standing on the edge of a small community surrounded by beautiful hills. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that problems often arise in rural areas as well, where there will often be much smaller concentrations of deprivation. That is one of the reasons why the sure start programme seeks to deal with small concentrations of problems in rural areas and why we must often look at different approaches in such areas. We must recognise that problems in rural areas will be different from those in urban areas.
	A considerable amount of work is under way, but there is more to do in many areas. People want to live in environments and communities that are clean, safe and green. The latter means places that are beautiful and pleasant, as well as places to play and enjoy, places for leisure and places for children in particular. Many of those ideas were encapsulated in the Government's programme to build sustainable communities, which was set out in the sustainable communities plan earlier this year. The plan is not merely about bricks and mortar or quick fixes; it is about trying to build town centres, streets, estates, communities, parks and green spaces of which people can feel proud.
	It is worth outlining the work that is under way in a series of areas and needs to be taken further in order to address people's concerns about their quality of life and provide opportunities to improve it. I shall deal first with investment in the public realm, including public and community infrastructure and facilities. We know that such investment declined over many years. When we think back to the Victorians, we think of their immense investment in town halls, urban parks and the important community facilities on which so many areas depended. For decades, those facilities declined, along with investment in them.
	In the past six years, however, we have seen substantial investment in local public facilities and the local environment. In particular, £1.8 billion has been invested over three years in the poorest communities through the neighbourhood renewal programme, which involves local strategic partnerships funding improvements in their areas. Improvements have ranged from neighbourhood wardens to street improvements, adventure playgrounds and a wide range of facilities that will address problems in particular areas.
	We have also seen considerable investment in sure start programmes throughout the country. Most of the programmes involve investing in facilities, often for the first time, for the very youngest children, who have often been left out when local communities and councils consider what facilities are needed and what their priorities should be. Local parks and drop-in centres are now being improved by sure start investment throughout the country. In considering what builds a community, we should never underestimate the role of parents of small children, who often have a strong and immediate interest in the quality of the local environment—where their children want to play—and a strong incentive to build links with other parents and members of the community. That is why the sure start programme is so important.
	Lottery funding has supported sports facilities and healthy living centres. There has also been a substantial increase in investment in housing—especially social housing—to help areas to meet the decent homes standard. As part of the sustainable communities fund, there has been a programme involving the investment of more than £200 million to improve parks and open and urban spaces. New resources have been provided for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, which is working on public and private buildings to improve design, and establishing CABE Space as a champion with the expertise to improve public spaces, including parks and green spaces.
	We have increased the support given to the Groundwork initiatives. I know that many hon. Members will have had contact with Groundwork in their constituencies. My experience locally has been that it is one of the most impressive organisations working with local communities, often including schoolchildren, to improve local facilities such as riverbanks, squares or parks. It has had a considerable impact on local communities. The increase in support means that it can back more than 4,500 projects each year.

Lynne Jones: When Groundwork projects occur, is not lack of capacity for future maintenance often a problem? Is that problem being addressed?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that the issue concerns not only physical infrastructure but what happens to facilities in the long term once they have been invested in. We often think in terms only of the capital investment that is needed to improve an area, but what can be done to sustain quality and involve the local community after that investment has been made can be far more important. Without such work, there will simply be investment in new facilities, after which all the same problems will arise, and the infrastructure will fall apart three or four years later. I certainly recognise that issue and I shall say a little more about it later.
	There are two more significant programmes. The living spaces fund is asking for bids from local communities and groups that support community gardens, play areas, parks and so on, and the liveability fund supports local councils in improving their public areas. Such programmes add up to £200 million over three years—probably the most substantial investment in green spaces since the Victorian era. We are also building design into planning new communities such as the Thames gateway and the millennium villages.
	As hon. Members have said, however, the issue concerns not only physical improvements but the communities themselves and the services that need to be delivered to maintain them and their facilities in future. The most beautiful street or space in the world can soon be spoiled if children have nowhere to go, if graffiti, litter or abandoned cars are left unchecked or if the neighbour is a nightmare. Many of our constituents see antisocial behaviour as one of the biggest threats to their quality of life. That is why the Government recently published the antisocial behaviour action plan. Hon. Members will have seen the plan, which builds on the work done in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that is currently passing through Parliament. In particular, it deals with issues relating to environmental crimes, greater action against nuisance neighbours and swifter action on abandoned cars, graffiti and the other problems that can make so much difference if they are not tackled quickly.

Anne Campbell: The improvements and schemes that my hon. Friend describes are to be applauded, but if people do not feel safe when they leave their homes, environmental improvements will not be of much help to them. In making a Sunday morning visit in one part of my constituency, I met several pensioners who told me that they were too afraid to leave their homes at night because of the extensive drug dealing in their area, as well as prostitution. I hope that she will encourage her Home Office colleagues to continue the good work that they are doing in those important areas.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. She will know that Home Office Ministers feel strongly about those problems. It is one of the most basic building blocks of a community that people can feel safe to walk the streets and join in with what is happening in their communities, and do not feel isolated in their homes because of fear of crime. One of the programmes that has made the biggest impact on these issues in past few years has been the neighbourhood wardens programme. There are many examples throughout the country of extremely popular neighbourhood wardens programmes in which local wardens know the area where they work.

Siobhain McDonagh: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Lavender Fields ward of my borough, Merton, on one of our worst estates, Sadlers Close, the police had a 47 per cent. reduction in the number of calls that they received about antisocial behaviour as a direct result of the introduction of a fabulous community warden?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that there are many examples of neighbourhood wardens making a substantial impact on the work of the police by not only addressing crime and the fear of crime, but providing wide-ranging community support. For example, earlier today I heard a story about a vulnerable resident who suffered from considerable mental health and other problems, and whose family in Australia had become worried about her. They contacted the local neighbourhood wardens through the internet to ask them to keep an eye on her. The wardens made regular visits and were able to provide support, including making sure that she got the health care that she needed. Because neighbourhood wardens work very much as part of and with their local community, they are able to carry out a far wider range of roles than we ever envisaged when the programmes were first set up. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is supporting more than 245 schemes with more than 1,400 wardens. In addition, many councils, new deal for communities schemes and local street partnerships are setting up their own neighbourhood warden programmes because of their proven effectiveness.

Andrew Turner: I should like to draw attention to the effectiveness of the neighbourhood warden scheme in Ryde, in my constituency.
	What does the hon. Lady think has broken down over the past 30 to 40 years that has led to the Government responding with such schemes? What has provoked the outbreak of crime, incivility and disorder on our streets and elsewhere that creates the symptoms that she reports?

Yvette Cooper: Many things have changed over many decades. All sorts of social changes have taken place. We have to recognise, too, that they have taken place in different ways and to varying degrees in different areas. For a long time, policymakers said that the public realm should not be invested in; that society does not exist; and that communities are merely collections of individuals rather than being important in their own right. That attitude contributed to the situation, but we can all point to a wide range of social causes over a long period. We are not in a situation of inevitable decline: many communities have been successful in making significant improvements to the atmosphere in the local community and the local environment. Antisocial behaviour and other problems in local communities must be responded to quickly and appropriately. In the long term, we need to build on community strength and opportunities and people's pride in the place where they live.

Ian Lucas: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that antisocial behaviour is the central issue for our constituents. Although there are many good examples of neighbourhood warden schemes and response schemes, too many local authorities still have structures that deal with health, social services and education, but do not see responding to antisocial behaviour as their central concern. My constituents, as consumers of services from their local authorities, tell me that that is the approach that they want them to take.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that local authorities vary considerably in this respect. My impression is that they are increasingly enthusiastic about taking such action, not least because of pressure from their local communities. The Home Office's action plan on antisocial behaviour took the approach that local authorities, in partnership with their local police and other agencies, need to build expertise and capacity in order to address the problems of antisocial behaviour. Moreover, rather than ignoring the problem, they should learn from neighbouring authorities that are dealing with the problem much more effectively. At the same time, we must recognise that where communities themselves are involved in local improvement projects and changes to local facilities, the impact can be much greater and more long-lasting than if such projects are drawn up for the area by the local council or another agency.

Andrew Selous: I very much agree with the Minister's earlier remarks about the importance of young parents with regard to public spaces. Does she agree that the role of fathers is particularly vital in relation to young boys? Will she give the House a commitment that the Government will give all support and encouragement to ensuring that fathers—preferably as part of a couple, but even if not—are fully involved in bringing up their adolescent sons?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that fathers play a crucial role, not only as role models, but in building relationships with their children as they grow up. In perpetuating the idea that sure start programmes are for mums with young children—indeed, they often use its drop-in centres—we tend to underestimate how much they are doing to involve fathers: for example, by having them on the board. They have recognised the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point; we as a Government are keen to support that.
	The evidence from programmes such as sure start, Groundwork and neighbourhood management pathfinders shows that communities that are involved in the design of the changes that are taking place have a sense of ownership of those changes, which, as a result, are not only more appropriate, but better protected and sustained in the long term.

Alan Meale: I appreciate what the Minister says about sure start, Groundwork and other programmes, but I want to return to her earlier answer about why such problems occur. We need to go back decades to when national Governments, particularly of the late 1970s, began to view local government less as a service provider and much more as a cost factor—"tax" and "charges" became dirty words. Since then, youth services and other community services that local authorities attempt to provide have been eroded.
	Let me give an example. In Victorian times, when people fought to establish free local government services, the provision and maintenance of public toilets was openly on the agenda of every local authority. Now, in this new millennium, public toilets are being closed all over Britain because they are seen as a heavy cost burden on local authorities. We need to re-engage with local authorities to give them more power, strength and encouragement in re-establishing that approach and not shying away from the simple fact of having to raise, through taxes, the money to pay for such services.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local authorities are critical to these issues. If we look at something as simple as spending on parks, we see that between 1991 and 1996, investment in parks and public spaces declined by between 10 and 20 per cent. throughout the country. In whatever area we choose, investment in those public facilities and public spaces, which are so important in enabling communities to operate, was in decline. That investment has now been substantially turned around, and we also want to build more investment into the future. My hon. Friend is right to say that local authorities have a critical role to play in these matters, and where they are successful it is often due to community leaders championing those facilities. They were discouraged from playing that role for many years, but there has been a change over the last few years.

Alan Meale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. The debate is about quality of life in local communities. In any ordinary constituency, more than 50 per cent.—usually between 51 and 52 per cent.—of the population have to plan their day around whether they will have access to a public toilet when they leave their home. If most of Britain's public toilets are being closed, there will not be much quality of life for those people in our communities.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local communities having a greater say in the provision of that kind of service is something that we need to promote. In my constituency and others, the provision of public toilets has become a particularly important issue. When councils have been able to respond to the local community or to local groups, progress has been made and the facilities that people need have been provided. It is important that local areas should be able to make their own decisions on these matters and be responsive. That is why local councils have such a critical role to play, and why there is an increasing role for local community groups to play in regard to these issues. This is not simply about what the town hall does; it is also about what the local community can do at a much more local level, and what decisions can be taken at ward level, for example. A lot of councils are trying out all kinds of innovative ideas involving area forums and area panels, and trying to devolve some of the decision making to neighbourhood panels, parish councils and so on, so as to be even more responsive to local community issues.
	We have a considerable programme of work under way, investing in the local environment and public facilities, as well as in the kind of community support and community capacity building that is critical if these changes are to be sustained. There is a considerable programme of action around antisocial behaviour as well.

Lady Hermon: I apologise for interrupting the Minister yet again; I appreciate her taking another intervention. Why has the antisocial behaviour legislation not been extended to Northern Ireland? The Minister will know, from her experience in her previous capacity in the then Lord Chancellor's Department, that criminal law, policing and justice are not devolved issues, so even when we have an Assembly, they are not devolved to it. Responsibility for policing, justice and antisocial behaviour remains here at Westminster, but that legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland. Antisocial behaviour is just as problematic in Bangor, County Down as it is in Bangor, Wales. Will the Minister please consult her colleagues in the Home Office to see whether, even at this late hour, that legislation could be applied to Northern Ireland?

Yvette Cooper: I would certainly be happy to raise that issue with my Home Office colleagues, although I suspect that the hon. Lady has done so herself on many occasions. We recognise that other areas have similar problems with antisocial behaviour, but we are very keen for devolution to work in practice and for as many as possible of those decisions to be taken at local level. I recognise the points that she made about crime, but she will also be aware that the Anti-social Behaviour Bill includes considerable provision related to housing, and to other areas in which we are keen for the devolved Administrations to make their own decisions.
	I will certainly raise that matter with my colleagues in the Home Office, although I believe that we need to encourage local areas to take responsibility for these issues, whether at regional or local level. We cannot simply deal with them from Westminster. There are things that we can do to support local areas, but we cannot expect to solve all the problems that local communities face or to transform those communities' quality of life from this Parliament and this Chamber. There will be opportunities at neighbourhood level for people to have a stronger say in the management of many of the services that affect their lives, such as cleaning the streets or community safety, and in tackling some of the inequalities that exist.
	I am conscious that other hon. Members want to contribute and that, with the leave of the House, I shall have the opportunity to wind up this debate later, but I would like to make a final point. We have discussed improving the quality of life in local communities and the importance of improving the local environment, investing in the infrastructure, supporting local communities and tackling antisocial behaviour. We should never forget, however, just how fundamental it is simply for people to have the chance of a good job, and to have enough money in their pocket to buy the things that they need for their family. All those things are fundamental to people's quality of life in their local community, and that is about promoting full employment in every region. It is also about having steady and sustainable growth in every region, and about tackling the economic inequalities that areas face. Those factors can make a powerful difference to people's quality of life.

Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again. I cheer the statements that she has just made, but does she agree that one of the new factors that affect people's quality of life is the failure of some families to function properly or to teach their children the common decencies, such as having respect for other people? Of course we have responsibilities here in Westminster and through our local authorities, but we cannot have strong communities unless there are strong families. Somehow, the Government must carefully put back on to the agenda the fact that the malfunctioning of some families is the root cause of many of the issues that we are discussing today.

Yvette Cooper: I recognise the point that my right hon. Friend makes. No one could say that the Government were not keen to provide greater family support and to recognise the problems that families face. For example, we have produced a Green Paper on children at risk and introduced the sure start and antisocial behaviour programmes. Nevertheless, we must also address the underlying issues, especially for the long term, in relation to the local economy and local economic inequality and opportunity. Someone who is involved in a community programme said to me recently that we must beware of looking at different areas and figuring that rich areas get jobs and poor areas get community consultation. That cannot be a long-term, sustainable approach to providing support for every community and every family, wherever they live, and to ensuring that they do not face inequality of opportunity or unfair disadvantage.
	People's quality of life depends on a wide range of factors. I have not touched on public services, not least because the MORI research referred to the local street environment and the issues related to that. In the long run, we all know that the things that make the greatest difference to families and to people in their communities are related to the quality of public services and the local economy. The title of our debate as shown on the Order Paper, "Quality of life in local communities", is potentially extremely wide-ranging, and I am sure that hon. Members will raise a wide range of issues today. I have chosen to highlight a few that are often neglected in our parliamentary debates, but I am sure that hon. Members will want to raise others, and I shall be happy to respond to them later.
	We also need to recognise that the investment and the changes that are taking place are making a substantial difference to many communities. I see changes taking place in my constituency of Pontefract and Castleford as well as local community groups, facilities and job opportunities that simply were not there five or six years ago. We are making considerable improvements, but we have to recognise also people's genuine concerns about quality of life in their communities.
	We can all make more of a difference in this area, but only if we recognise that that cannot be done simply through Parliament. It has to be done by communities and agencies across the country working in partnership to improve the quality of life of our communities.

Philip Hammond: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate what is, as the Minister said, an extraordinarily broad subject—the quality of life. It seems to me that the quality of life involves a range of things that she touched on in the last few moments of her speech. I feared at one stage that she was going to leave us with the impression that the local initiatives, important and valuable as they are, are what primarily determine the quality of life of our constituents in our local communities. Whether we would like that to be the case or not, the fact is that what central Government do is far more likely to impact on the overall quality of life of people, wherever they are in the country.
	When I saw the title of the debate, I had thought that the Minister might attempt a comprehensive defence of Government policy across the board—economic, education, social, health and housing policy—but she chose to interpret it a little more narrowly. In thinking about how to stay in order, it seemed to me that there is almost no subject that could not be raised as relevant to the quality of life that people in our communities enjoy.
	This matter involves material well-being—people having a roof over their heads, income in their pockets and public services that are accessible and user friendly—as well as the environment that we live in, which means liveable towns and cities with quality countryside surrounding them, and transport services that are accessible, reliable and affordable. It also involves a sense of security, which means physical security in our towns and cities and the freedom from crime and the fear of crime, as well as security of employment, financial security and security in old age: people knowing that the savings they have made in their lifetime will be there and can provide a decent living. People need confidence that the services that they have contributed to throughout their working lives will be delivered when they need them in old age.
	The debate is about opportunity and empowerment, access to quality education, diversity of employment opportunities, health and choice in lifestyle and services. I am sorry to say to the Minister that it also involves things that are beyond the remit even of this Government, such as the freedom to practise one's beliefs. We take that very much for granted, but in other parts of the world people have to die for it. The debate is also about a sense of community, both local and national.
	As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, we are discussing also the support of friends and family, which can be such a huge influence on the quality of life that people enjoy. However, I shall try to focus on those areas for which the Government have responsibility.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend mentioned accessibility to public services. In terms of promoting community spirit, does he agree that our post offices play a vital role in doing that in all our constituencies? There have been a number of post office closures in my constituency in recent years and last week I received notification of two more. Does he agree that this programme has gone on for quite a while and that the Post Office should think very carefully before recommending even more post offices for closure?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Adjournment debate on local government. We are going wide of the subject.

Philip Hammond: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the debate is about the quality of life in local communities and I wrestled with its scope for some time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. My apologies.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is right, and I am pleased that the Minister gave due recognition to the importance of community. I say to her that that refers not only to local communities, but to national communities and people having a sense of belonging and of place. My hon. Friend ably put his finger on an example of how Government policy has allowed the heart to be ripped out of many suburban and rural communities with the loss of the local post office, which is such an important part of the structure of those communities.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that one phenomenon that is corrosive of precisely that sense of belonging that he rightly identifies as important is graffiti? Although the incidence of graffiti in local communities is not recorded separately from other crime statistics, but rather is incorporated within the category of criminal damage, does he agree that an attack on that phenomenon is crucial to the recovery of the self-respect on which the success of local communities will depend?

Philip Hammond: I can readily agree with my hon. Friend, and we have already heard contributions identifying the fact that an attack on low-level crime and disorder is crucial to the quality of life of many of our constituents—people in local communities. Indeed, that is disproportionately so. If he will allow me, this is one of the issues that I will come to in due course.
	The Minister mentioned income at the end of her remarks. I would have thought that income is pretty near the top of the list of things that determine people's quality of life. Of course people need an adequate after-tax income to enjoy a decent quality of life, but this Government, under a Prime Minister who pledged that we would face no tax increases at all, have increased taxes 60 times so that we pay 50 per cent. more tax than in 1997.
	Across the country, people in communities face swingeing increases in council tax, which is a form of national taxation because of how the grant system works, as local authorities struggle to deal with central Government's redetermination of priorities. That leaves them with no choice but to raise council taxes or cut local services.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is entirely predictable.

Matthew Green: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the council tax is a fair tax on pensioners? If not, does he think that there should be a measure based on ability to pay?

Philip Hammond: I think that the Liberals' proposal, as currently formulated for a local income tax, would be a disaster for local communities that led to higher tax bills for ordinary, hard-working families across the country—another blow to the quality of life in our local communities.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that in low-income areas such as the Isle of Wight a higher rate of local income tax would be required to raise the same amount of money as, for example, in his own constituency? In that respect, the Liberal Democrat proposals would severely damage my working constituents.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point and puts his finger on one of the weaknesses of the Liberal Democrat proposals. There would not be a local income tax in any genuine sense because there would have to be a redistribution mechanism, which would break the crucial link between local ability to pay and the tax raised locally.
	We all appreciate that the flip side of taxation is public service spending. We all want to enjoy high-quality public services, so have we seen improvements in those public services, which make up another component of people's quality of life, as our taxes have soared by 50 per cent. since 1997? The answer, of course, is that we have not.
	The problem is that the switch of resources to public services was not preceded, as the Government originally promised, by an improvement in delivery productivity. So we see a business on the scale of the national health service accounting for 8 per cent. of United Kingdom gross domestic product. It achieved a 21 per cent. increase in funding over two years, but delivered just a 2 per cent. increase in output growth. That represents a negative growth in productivity that would result in bankruptcy in the private sector. It contributes to the halving of the productivity growth rate in the economy overall that has taken place since this Government took over from the last Conservative Administration. That is not a dry point: productivity growth fuels the increases in personal consumption, public services and public investment that underpin so much of our quality of life.
	The truth is that the Government have had a lucky run—initially, with considerable prudence, building on the legacy of their predecessor and more recently, with alarming profligacy, proceeding blindly down the alley on which they have embarked. They have brought the economy to tipping point. The Chancellor is playing a game of brinkmanship with the prosperity and quality of life of millions of people as he gambles on the appearance of a new driver for the economy before his inevitable puncturing of the balloon of private and public borrowing that is the only thing keeping the economy afloat.
	The Government have not spent the money they have raised from hardworking families—eroding their disposable incomes and their ability to exercise choice—on improving our public services. They have squandered it on bureaucratic, underdelivering services that they have neither the political will nor the courage to reform. Where else in the world could we find a health service which, while enjoying a 20 per cent. increase in funding, can deliver only marginal improvements in health care? A million people are still waiting for NHS treatment. Last year alone, 300,000 people without health care insurance had to dig into their savings and pay for their own medical treatment, while 70,000 patients had their operations cancelled within 24 hours of the time when they were due despite a Government drive to reduce the number of such cases. All those things have had a serious impact on the quality of life in local communities.
	Then there are the inequalities in health care that persist despite the Government's constant reassertion of their determination to wipe them out. Three years into a crusade against cancer, two thirds of the number of women with breast cancer who could benefit from the drug Herceptin are not receiving it. That figure masks a huge range of prescription levels—for instance, the discrepancy between levels in the west midlands and the south-east. Those inequalities—the postcode lotteries that persist despite the Government's rhetoric—undermine the quality of life throughout the country.
	The Government railed against managers in the NHS before coming to power, but there are now 45 per cent. more managers than there were in 1997. There are more managers than beds. As for education—funded by central Government, but delivered by local authorities under the close and watchful eye of Whitehall—one in three 11-year-olds leaves school unable to read, write or count properly, and this year more than 33,000 16-year-olds left without a single GCSE at any grade. Discipline in schools is collapsing: somewhere in England or Wales, there is an attack on a school teacher every seven minutes during the school day. There is also a rising tide of truancy. All those things contribute to the sense of insecurity, and undermine the quality of life in local communities.
	The Government's response is to increase the torrent of central guidance for schools, rather than freeing headmasters and teachers to create the environment that parents want for their local communities—be it a more disciplined or a less disciplined environment. The Government insist on central directives and on inflating school costs through headline deals which they then spectacularly fail to fund, leaving local authorities and schools to wrestle with overstretched budgets rather than focusing on the delivery of quality education and an appropriate environment to the children whom they serve.
	Meanwhile, more and more parents—including, apparently, Labour MPs—give up on the state altogether. Hundreds of thousands have been forced to do just what others have been forced to do in relation to NHS waiting lists, and raid their savings to buy privately something for which they have already paid through taxation. That is an affront to their right as citizens to enjoy good quality public services wherever they live.
	What of the environment in which we live—our transport infrastructure, and our towns and cities? Perhaps this has more to do with what the Minister talked about. None of us would deny that a roof over one's head is a pretty fundamental requirement for a decent quality of life, and to many millions of people in Britain owning that roof represents a huge step up. We are talking about a roof over people's heads, and a chance to get on to the housing ownership ladder. Labour has failed on both counts.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 15 minutes. He has produced a catalogue of Government failings, and I agree with much of what he has said. But can he reassure us that at some point he may offer a solution rather than just listing problems?

Philip Hammond: I shall deal with our policy agenda shortly. The point I am making now is that this Government, who are long on rhetoric, have taken large amounts of money from the pockets of ordinary hardworking families to invest in public services that have spectacularly failed to improve those people's quality of life. The Minister devoted a large part of her rather longer speech to worthy and worthwhile local initiatives, without addressing much bigger issues of Government policy that crucially undermine the quality of life of individuals throughout the country.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the issues raised by the Minister are the issues raised in my surgeries every week, and that they directly affect my constituents' quality of life? I should be delighted to hear the Opposition's proposals in that regard.

Philip Hammond: Even the Minister recognised in the closing moments of her speech that the bigger issues such as health, taxation, education and social services affect the quality of life crucially—that they provide the backdrop. Perhaps as crucial as anything in all local communities is the provision of housing. The number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has increased threefold since 1997, and priority homelessness has increased by 26 per cent. That failure in particular underlines the Government's failure to live up to their rhetoric about caring for the most vulnerable in society, and improving quality of life for those most in need.

Alan Whitehead: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of a roof over one's head and of housebuilding programmes. Can he explain why members of his party throughout the country have opposed plans for the building of new and, in particular, affordable housing in areas where the issues that he raises could be dealt with?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is not being terribly specific. I do not doubt for a moment that various members of my party in various places may have opposed specific proposals. In a moment I shall say something about the Government's communities plan, which is the main way in which they hope to address these issues.
	The number of social housing completions has fallen by a third since 1997. If we had maintained the 1997 rate, we would now have 35,000 more social homes—enough to house the families who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation three times over. What I consider even more pernicious, however, is that across large areas even people in full-time work find it impossible to gain access to home ownership. What we used to call social housing, which most of us used to regard as a way to provide housing for those who were unable to participate fully in the economy, now needs to be provided for people who have full-time jobs, often in the public sector. I find that intolerable; it does not serve our communities or those who work in our public services.
	The Government's answer is the communities plan, consisting of four growth areas in the south-east and a proposal to demolish many homes in the north. The communities plan will do nothing for the quality of life of the hundreds of thousands of workers across the south-east in the public and private sectors who aspire to owning their own homes in the communities that they serve. Instead, they will be condemned either to key worker, rented housing, or to long-distance commuting to the area in which they work from a home in a growth area selected by the Government. If they do choose to commute, they will get a chance to assess the success of the Government's 10-year plan for transport, which has been rubbished by virtually everyone—from the Commission for Integrated Transport to the Select Committee and the social exclusion unit.
	If those people go by train, they will have plenty of time to ponder on the longer journey times and decreased reliability of a railway that is soaking up ever-larger volumes of taxpayer's money. And they will perhaps have a chance to consider the Government's extraordinary feat in turning a poorly performing element of our infrastructure—our national railway—into a worse performing one, which now seems to need to double as a bottomless pit for public finance, if we are to avoid its imploding completely. If they go by car, they will be able to contemplate the £45 billion in taxes that Government impose on motorists, while considering that Britain's spends the lowest proportion of motoring taxes on transport of any country in the western world.
	Either way, as those people commute they will get a chance to see something of the countryside that the Government talk about protecting, but for which they display nothing but contempt. The failure to support rural communities as agriculture has lurched from crisis to crisis has eroded the quality of life of those who live in, and depend on, the countryside. The countryside is not a mausoleum, so that failure will erode its ability to benefit those who live in our towns and cities.
	In an earlier intervention, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out that the key issue that emerges on the doorstep when one asks people about quality of life is having a sense of security. In part, that means future financial security, such as pensions; critically, it also means basic physical security, which we might hope to be able to take for granted today, but cannot. Crime and the fear of crime blight lives in our communities as much as, if not more than, material poverty. Britain under Labour has become the crime capital of the western world. Violent crime recorded by the police has increased by 70 per cent. since 1999, while clear-up is down by one quarter. Gun crime has doubled under Labour. People in England and Wales are now more likely to be victims of crime than those in Europe or north America.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, however, that almost as worrying is the growth in low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. A senior police officer described it to me the other day as a social malaise that has soared under Labour. It makes life a misery for people in our local communities. It makes them feel vulnerable and disempowered, and I suggest to the Government that it is a symptom of a lack of balance between rights and responsibilities in our communities.
	The solution to detrimental low-level crime and disorder is neighbourhood policing that is accountable to the community, so that the community's priorities are reflected in the police's responses. Too often in too many areas, what the police consider low-level crime does not get the response that the community believes it deserves. The next Conservative Government have pledged to increase the number of police officers on the streets through the savings that we will make by sorting out the shambolic asylum system; and to reduce police bureaucracy, so that those additional officers deliver real reassurance on the streets of our towns and cities, throughout the country.
	I want to touch on another issue relating to physical security that is germane to the debate on local communities. It is not only our police forces that protect us from the threats around us; so do our fire and rescue services. During the long fire dispute, the Government pledged that the modernisation of fire services would result in a reduction in fire deaths. So how many people will sleep safer in their beds and see their quality of life improved, thanks to Government's recent reduction of their target in respect of deliberate fires? Their target figure of a 30 per cent. reduction by 2009 has been amended to a mere 10 per cent. reduction by 2010. And how will people's sense of security be enhanced by the Government's reducing their target of a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths from 2004—a date that is a bit close to judgment day? Suddenly, that date has been pushed out to 2010.
	Such examples underline the nature of this Government's use of targets. Targets grab headlines when they are announced, but when they become difficult to meet they get pushed back. Indeed, during a Standing Committee debate the other day, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) was very honest about the accidental deaths target. He said:
	"We have extended that to March 2010 because . . . the previous target was not attainable."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 21 October 2003; c. 4.]
	At least he was honest, but what is the point of setting targets if, every time we get close to judgment day, the Government simply push them back to a date beyond the next general election?
	As the Minister knows, there are many areas that I have not even touched on that contribute considerably to the sense of an undermining of the quality of life in our local communities. Indeed, I hope to mention some points that relate specifically to my local community, and to discover some things ahead of the expected announcement from the Chancellor. We confidently predict that we will hear of yet higher taxes, yet more burdens on hard-working families and yet higher council tax levels. On the local government settlement, we expect to hear more from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) about the Government's redistribution of resources around the country, which will undermine the quality of life of people in communities not favoured with this Government's largesse.
	The Government can best contribute to the quality of life in our local communities by giving them back their freedom: the freedom for local authorities to address the needs of the community, not the targets of government; the freedom for accountable police authorities to address community priorities, thus enhancing the population's sense of safety and security; the freedom for our doctors, nurses and teachers to treat and to teach; and the freedom for patients and parents to exercise the choice that empowers individuals. We need a Government who live within their means; taxation that does not squeeze the lifeblood out of our economy; public services that are reformed to deliver efficiently, without waste and bureaucracy, through the exercise of citizen choice; funding distribution based on the need to protect the vulnerable everywhere—not just in areas favoured by government—while still promoting economic growth and allowing the economy to grow by attracting investment to the areas in which inward investment wants to locate.
	In short, we need a fair deal for everyone—the south as well as the north, the countryside as well as our cities. That is the way for the Government to contribute to a rise in the quality of life for all our local communities.

Joan Walley: I contribute to this debate as the chair of the all-party group on regeneration, which has had many discussions on the quality of life. Indeed, I want to record my thanks to the Minister for recently attending a meeting of the group. Such a debate is important, and the speeches made so far have made it clear just how important this issue is for MPs and their constituencies. If the phone calls, visits, letters and e-mails to my constituency office are anything to go by, this issue tops all the others in terms of what matters to people. It is intrinsically linked to people feeling that they can have faith in their MP, faith in their Government and faith in their local authority to deliver the things that matter to them.
	Our debate on this subject is important and necessary. As was mentioned in an earlier intervention, we seem to have lost a sense of place, a sense of belonging and a sense of trust in a community identity whereby people know who is responsible for what, who to go to when something needs to be done and what can be done to put things right when they go wrong. We know that some people will be proactive in getting such things done. What we need to convey from today's debate, which also reflects the debates in the all-party regeneration group, is the fact that we support the Minister because we realise that she has a cross-cutting role inside the Government to deal with issues such as community safety, policing, education and so forth. Ultimately, the Treasury is involved in respect of the finances available for dealing with those issues. We want to give more power to the Minister's elbow to fight that corner for us. That is why our debate is important.
	The debate is also timely. It is being held not only before the Queen's Speech but before the next spending round, which will determine the allocation of moneys. We must issue the plea that every Cabinet Minister should take the quality of life seriously, and we also need a strategy for delivery. I am often reminded of the phrase, "vision without action is just a dream; action without vision is just a waste of time". Only when we can combine vision with action will we change the world. Our constituents want their MPs to help to change the world for the better in the local community.
	Today's debate highlights quality of life indicators, which are welcome, and I greatly commend the Government for introducing them. We can monitor the quality of life indicators to establish how things are changing and improving. We need to use such tools to add weight to the importance of delivery at the local level.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's speech and I know that she wants to deliver at the local level, so how does she square that with her Government's removal of housing and planning to the regional level? Does that not amount to taking such decisions away from local people, making services far more remote and less accessible?

Joan Walley: A great deal of consideration should be given to the new planning guidance, as well as to the current guidance. People want some input into the planning decisions that affect their local areas. As the Minister said in her introduction, we must examine our economic well-being at the regional level. It is important to plan in order to avoid huge out-of-town developments, which have done so much to undermine a local sense of well-being and belonging.
	I remember that, as a child, I knew everybody. I knew who people were before they were married; I knew their names; I knew all about them. My point about the planning system is that we need to take account of issues as a whole—at a regional level as well as at the local level—and I believe that the Government are getting the balance right.
	We must examine the role of local authorities. Following on from this debate, I would like us to reflect on how to get local democracy right. We should examine how local councillors can play a part in the regeneration policies that we want. There is a danger of having too many local partnerships of one sort or another, bringing about more bureaucracy rather than allowing locally elected people at the ward level any real opportunities to design, deliver and implement what is needed.

Andrew Selous: It is right to talk about getting local democracy right, so what would the hon. Lady say to local councillors in my area, where the biggest local issue for about 50 years—the doubling of the number of houses in the constituency—has been taken entirely out of their hands? It is being decided at regional level and through an urban development corporation with the approval of only a minority of elected councillors. What happens to local democracy in those circumstances?

Joan Walley: Anyone who knows my record will be aware that I am a proud defender of the rights of local democracies and, indeed, of local councillors. It is important that planning is conducted within a national as well as a regional framework. It is important that we get the balance right.
	We have had many reports—the Rogers report, for example—various consultation documents, and other reports from the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but the time for talk is now effectively over. It is now time for delivery. I cannot therefore stress enough the importance of the Minister's ability to cross Departments. Various recommendations have resulted from the work of the various taskforces and the many people across the country who have given freely of their time to influence what should be done: now is the time to put them into action. That is crucial.
	Neighbourhoods are also an important issue. I come from an area that has a very strong sense of neighbourhood. People place high value on the public realm and their local communities, whether it be in respect of parks, play spaces or local services such as rubbish collection or the maintenance of shared areas. It is a matter of concern when national surveys have revealed that 40 per cent. of people would like to move from poorer areas because they feel that the neighbourhood conditions are not right. That is why I greatly welcome the housing renewal programme, which the Government have introduced. It will apply in north Staffordshire and I urge the Minister to ensure that we get it in place as quickly as possible and link it to regional planning and economic development issues.
	I was struck by Members' comments about antisocial behaviour. I have been involved in many research studies, and in my experience it is the issue that matters more than any other to many people. I noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who has successfully piloted the Fireworks Bill through the House, in his place earlier. Some antisocial behaviour could result from not yet having dealt with the previous Government's abolition of controls on the importation of fireworks. Antisocial behaviour often makes people move from inner-city areas to greener places where we should not be building, so we must ensure that we build sustainable communities in urban areas.
	It is often only a small minority of people who cause much antisocial behaviour. Whether it results from insufficient drug rehabilitation places, insufficient parenting skills, a continuing cycle of deprivation or whatever, we must deal with the problem, because feeling safe in the community is more important than anything else.
	I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the role that street lighting can play in tackling antisocial behaviour. The Home Office has tended to invest large sums in closed circuit television cameras on the grounds that they can play a large role in reducing antisocial behaviour. I have to say that the contribution that CCTV cameras can make depends on monitoring within the local authority. Research undertaken by the all-party lighting group showed that more effective street lighting could play a bigger role. Such lighting need not be polluting, which might make it unwelcome in some rural countryside areas. New technology exists to get round that problem. I firmly believe that effective street lighting could make a huge difference.

Edward Davey: To back up the hon. Lady's point, CCTV was introduced on the Cambridge road estate in the Norbiton ward in my constituency. The high-tech CCTV was in place, but parts of the estate were not sufficiently lit. That shows that there was no joint thinking, which would have ensured that the lighting was adequate. We need a dual approach with both cameras and proper lighting.

Joan Walley: I am glad to have the opportunity to commend the work that the hon. Gentleman has done for the all-party street lighting group. If a local authority cannot afford to employ sufficient people to monitor its cameras, or if blind spots are caused by insufficient street lighting or overgrown trees in summer, CCTV will make no difference to antisocial behaviour and may merely displace it from one area to another. That shows the need for proper communication between the Government and local authorities to ensure sufficient assessment of street lighting, where it is failing and where it needs to be replaced. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to remind the Treasury that funding must also be available—I am happy to say that we have private finance initiative funding for the whole of Stoke-on-Trent to be relit—throughout the whole country.

Andrew Turner: The problem is that CCTV is merely treating the symptom. I understand why people want the symptom to be treated, but we need to treat the disease. Will the hon. Lady explain, if she can, on behalf of Ministers who have not yet explained it, how we can treat the disease of antisocial behaviour, rather than merely the symptoms?

Joan Walley: We were promised at the outset that this would be a far-ranging debate and that is what it has turned into. We need to consider the whole issue of how we address antisocial behaviour. One good news story in Stoke-on-Trent is the sure start programme, which has reached out to young people. It gives both men and women parenting skills and provides toy libraries, and advice on proper nutrition and on proper parental behaviour. It links with nursery provision in the area and it helps young children. However, it is older children who contribute so much to the senseless yobbish behaviour that undermines our communities. Drug addiction is one problem, and we need to combat nationally the increasing amount of drugs entering the country and the hopelessness they bring. At the weekend, I drove through parts of the country that I do not know very well—former coalfield areas outside north Staffordshire—where traditional jobs have been taken away and have not yet been fully replaced, and that is why I support what the Minister said about economic security. We need to work with regional development agencies to provide the investment that we need on the ground to create new jobs. People in my constituency have lost their jobs in the ceramic industry because their jobs have been outsourced. We need to address those issues quickly, but in a way that is well thought out and works across the board.
	Play issues are also important. Twenty years ago, local authorities had clear responsibilities to provide parks, but investment over the years has not been what it should have been. I pay tribute to the Government for setting up the working party on play, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I am proud to say that the working party's report was launched at a conference held by the Landscape Institute at Vale Park conference centre in my constituency. It is very important that we provide good play areas for children and proper areas for young people.
	Stoke-on-Trent city council advises me of a major problem, in that the majority of funding for play comes from external funding sources, including the neighbourhood renewal fund, the children's fund, the new opportunities better play programme, positive action for young people, community cohesion or learning and skills councils. Local authorities have a real problem deciding which source to apply to for what purpose. The Government also need to ensure security of funding so that it does not dry up after a scheme has been running for three years. We also need the chance to follow up pilot projects with mainstream projects. It is no good setting up neighbourhood management teams with neighbourhood renewal funds if, three years later, the funds are not available to continue that work. It makes recruitment difficult if people are uncertain about how long their jobs will last.

Alan Meale: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to local authorities of all political persuasions for their work on biodiversity? Some 5,000 local authorities throughout Europe have participated fully in Agenda 21, at a local level in their communities and through education programmes.

Joan Walley: Last Wednesday, I was invited to launch a conference entitled "Sustainable Staffordshire", held to celebrate the 10th anniversary of a group, which included people from businesses, local authorities and other organisations, set up to carry out the work of Agenda 21. I had helped to set up the group and it invited me back to celebrate its anniversary. At the conference, I was able to report back from the Johannesburg world summit. As the Environmental Audit Committee has done many times, we were able to examine how the issue of environmental sustainability should be part and parcel of the process of regeneration. Every regeneration proposal must have regard to biodiversity and the real issues raised by the action plan from the Johannesburg world summit, which built on the progress achieved after the Rio earth summit some 10 years ago. For example, the Government have announced today a review of English Nature and we need to ensure that what is put in its place pays proper regard to issues of sustainability. That will also require the Government to work with local authorities.
	The citizenship scheme that the Government have introduced in schools can play an important part in ensuring that our young people understand our agenda. Huge gains can be made by providing proper funding for sport. I note the concerns that the full amount of funding from the Treasury has not reached the Football Foundation, which provides partnership funding for sport at a local level, together with the premiership and other funding sources, such as the lottery. I urge the Minister to check with her colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that promised funding is allocated in its entirety.
	I supported the post office network reinvention programme, because I know how important post offices are to so many urban and rural areas. I would be grateful if the Minister worked closely with the Post Office on the implementation of that programme, which I understood would look strategically at where post offices were needed to ensure access for local communities, in a similar way to the process that provided extra money for rural post offices. My area still has many urban villages—former mining communities—and the Post Office has taken the easy way out. For example, it has closed the post office in Ball Green, despite huge opposition and before strategic consideration of what is needed. I do not think that the Post Office is abiding by the letter of what was agreed. Visiting the post office means that one meets people and feels part of the community. The sense of belonging is really important.
	I am conscious of the time, so I will raise only two more issues. The first has to do with back alleys. In the 21st century, it is not right that so many people in terraced properties should find themselves ankle deep in mud when they go out of their back door because the alley has not been adopted. I have spent eight years campaigning on this matter. I have gone to the local government office, to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and to the regional development agencies and the local authorities, but with no success, as there is no dedicated funding for adopted alleys. I am sure that many of my constituents would welcome designated funding to adopt all the unadopted alleys—for instance, as part of the housing renewal programme.
	Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister when she said that the most deprived communities are often the ones with the largest needs. I want to end with a plea. Stoke-on-Trent city council has applied for a share of the £200 million liveability fund. I pay great tribute to the work done by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment in helping local authorities draw up proposals, but only three of the 28 applicants for the liveability fund in the west midlands will be successful.
	Stoke-on-Trent has suffered huge job losses and urban deprivation. Genuine desire for improvement was expressed at the conference launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, and a plea was made that my local authority's application should be successful. I met Mr. Phillip Harper, the director of urban management recently appointed by the council manager for Stoke-on-Trent city council. I understand that two weeks ago Mr. Harper had a special meeting with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and other departmental Ministers to talk about the wonderful work that had been done in Middlesbrough. It is clear that Mr. Harper could administer any money received as a result of a successful liveability fund application. I know that the Government are to make an announcement early this month. I cannot stress how important a winning application would be to my constituents.

Matthew Green: I am pleased that the Government have arranged this wide-ranging debate. Like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), I want to be as positive as possible when it comes to proposing solutions to some of the problems that exist. I do not want to copy the style of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who spent 27 minutes talking about problems, and one minute skating over a few solutions.
	A regular feature of the contributions so far has been the issue of antisocial behaviour and low-level crime. The Minister was right to touch on the roots of those problems. In particular, the 1980s were a period when the sense of community broke down. It was replaced with a much more individualistic approach, when belonging to a community became much less important.
	Cultivating a sense of community is one of the most effective ways to reduce antisocial behaviour. I speak with some knowledge, as there is practically no such behaviour in my constituency. I served on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, but I think that I have received only two letters on the subject since I became a Member of Parliament. I realise that that is not a common experience among hon. Members, but why should that be?
	In my constituency, there is a very strong sense of local community. That is partly because the communities involved are small and widely dispersed, and we do not suffer from the problems that have emerged elsewhere. Conservative Members need to address the fact that the breakdown in the sense of community is one of the main reasons why antisocial behaviour is such a large problem. Many of the Government's solutions are sticking plasters applied in an attempt to paper over the damage. We must try to rebuild that sense of community.
	It has rightly been said that the problem of graffiti is a blight on many communities. Graffiti wears down people's sense of well being in their community, and probably encourage crime. Liberal Democrat Members supported the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill's provision on graffiti, but councils have been able to act effectively even before those provisions have been introduced. No one has all the solutions, and we need to look at best practices.
	Milton Keynes council decided that graffiti was one of the most serious problems in the area, and residents wanted the matter dealt with. The council set up graffiti-busting teams, and there are now about 2,000 fewer tags or problems with graffiti than was the case two years ago. The teams act very promptly, and deal with a problem as soon as it is identified. They have tackled the existing problem with graffiti, and the number of incidents involving graffiti in the future is likely to be lower. Councils in general could learn from that.
	Kingston council, in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), has adopted a holistic approach. It has worked with magistrates and police to produce joined-up initiatives, and a dramatic reduction in graffiti has been achieved.
	I have presented two examples of positive action by local councils, but I am sure that other hon. Members know of others. They would be doing the House a service if they described them.
	Dealing with crime sometimes requires more than a big stick. The design of local communities is also very important. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North spoke about back alleys. In Liverpool, locks and gates have been placed on back alleys, and residents have been given the keys. As a result, they have control over the alleys, and the policy has had a dramatic effect in cutting crime. Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the most effective. The one that I have just described is also very cheap, but it has worked very well.

Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest difficulties when it comes to dealing with antisocial behaviour, or what has been called learnable crime, is that agencies such as the police, local authorities, community councils do not talk to each other? Straightforward solutions are missed as a result.

Matthew Green: My immediate response is that, if those agencies are not speaking to each other, it must be the role of the local MP to ensure that they begin to do so. Perhaps matters are different in the hon. Gentleman's area. If local agencies in my area were not in touch with each other, I would make sure that they got together and spoke to each other. I would not let them get away with not doing so. It is possible for MPs to have an influence in that way.
	One difficulty with antisocial behaviour is that the Government's approach has been to vilify young people. In effect, the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill says that young people are the problem and that a solution can be achieved by hitting them harder with a stick. Some elements of the Bill are necessary and welcome, but the proposal in respect of the dispersal of groups is unacceptable. At its worst, the Bill will punish innocent people for the misbehaviour of others, as those innocent people will be the ones to be dispersed from an area when problems are caused by outsiders. That approach will cause young people to have less regard and respect for their communities and for the forces of law and order. It is not an approach that the Government should be following.

Edward Davey: On the Sunray estate in Tolworth in my constituency, we have the problem of youth gangs committing antisocial behaviour and terrorising some of the residents. Last week, I held a meeting with local police who told me that they did not want to criminalise young people but to find diversion tactics—other ways to reach out to them and to find other things for them to do—as well as empower the residents so that they could link up and build the sort of community that is the only sure foundation for stopping such antisocial behaviour.

Matthew Green: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Perhaps the saving grace of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill is that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it fairly clear that it thinks the police will never use the dispersal powers. Once again, we have a piece of legislation that will probably never be used.

Ian Lucas: May I share with the hon. Gentleman details of a case from my own constituency? A letter arrived on my desk yesterday morning from a lady who described how, due to the behaviour of between 25 and 30 young people in her area, she needed protection from the police. They asked her to contact me to make it clear that they wanted dispersal powers to deal with those incidents. Today, I shall write to her to let her know that the Liberal Democrats do not support such powers.

Matthew Green: We certainly do not support the dispersal powers that are currently set out. I am happy to defend that position.
	Housing has been mentioned. The right to a roof over one's head is key to people's quality of life. I want to consider three aspects. The first is affordable housing to rent. As we have heard, there has been a decline—especially since 1997, as it happens—in the amount of new social housing that has been built, although that decline started as long ago as 1990. The number of new houses registered to social landlords has been in decline since then.
	The situation is exacerbated by the continued existence of the right to buy, especially in areas of high housing demand. Local councils should be given the power to decide both whether right to buy should apply in their area and on the scale of the discount to be offered. That would stop the erosion of housing stock in high-demand areas.

Philip Hammond: Selling a house under right to buy does not cause that house to be lost from the housing stock; it causes it to be occupied by exactly the same person who occupied it on the day before it was bought and who would have continued to occupy it on the day after it was bought even if it had not been bought.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is clearly unaware of the number of cases of abuse of the right-to-buy system. People are encouraged to take up that right, but after a couple of years a company acquires the house. There is huge profiteering by people who are not the original tenants.

Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend may be aware that in rural constituencies, former council houses in small villages have a high value. They can be sold on after four, five, six or 10 years at a large profit and are then lost to the social market.

Matthew Green: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. My constituency is a rural one and affordable housing is the No. 1 issue. People want more homes to rent. The reason that there are fewer such homes is that too many of them were sold under the right to buy.

Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his objection is to abuse of the right to buy scheme and not to the scheme per se? Earlier, he appeared to be saying that local authorities should be able to opt out of the right to buy.

Matthew Green: I said that by removing the discount local authorities would be able, in effect, to opt out. That is giving local choice to local communities, something to which I thought the Conservatives had converted themselves over recent months—to the shock of many of us: local solutions for local problems.

Andrew Turner: Another aspect of local choice for local communities is that of who should be on their housing list. My constituents complain furiously that people come from the mainland and are housed in my constituency. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Liberal Democrats support the right of local authorities to determine who should be on their housing list?

Matthew Green: I have to point out that Tory asylum policy is to find an island, as yet unspecified, on which to stick all asylum seekers. With that in mind, the hon. Gentleman should be wary of talking about housing and incomers.
	We need more registered social landlord properties, and they can be delivered through the planning system. Several local authorities, including one in my area, have adopted a policy requirement of 50 per cent. affordable homes on sites of two or more houses. That is much higher than the Government's recommendation of 30 per cent. affordable homes on sites of 19 or more. In areas of high demand, especially around London and in the south-east, I encourage the Government to push the figure up to 50 per cent. on sites of two or more houses. In that way, the market can deliver extra rented homes.
	We also need affordable houses to buy. The rampant growth in house prices means that in large parts of the country few people can afford to get on to the housing ladder. In London and the south-east, the problem affects key workers. In rural areas such as mine, where wages are low but house prices have risen due to people retiring to the area, local working families can no longer afford to get on to the ladder.
	I offer a positive solution. It was dreamed up by South Shropshire district council and has already been adopted in the Dartmoor national park: the use of the golden share scheme, under arrangements set out in section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to ensure that when a property is built it is bought, at a reduced amount, by people who qualify as local and who need to live in the area because they have local links or work there. However, when they sell the property it cannot go on to the open market; there are restraints under section 106 so that it remains affordable in perpetuity. The system was introduced in south Shropshire in January.
	The Minister may not know about the scheme in detail, so I shall not ask her for an instant response, but I urge to look into it. It offers a way to create a middle tier of affordable housing whereby people can own 100 per cent. of their property with no shared equity. Such houses remain affordable for local families.
	Houses should also be affordable to live in. The Government could do much more to improve building regulations to ensure that energy use is reduced, through measures such as the incorporation of natural light and heating in the design of houses. If they were serious about the introduction of micro combined heat and power plants to serve all properties with a gas supply—about 70 per cent. of UK houses—they could replace nuclear power within the next 15 years, as long as they allow net metering. That would produce a dramatic effect; cheaper heat and light will make homes more affordable to live in. There is much that the Government can do about that and I hope to hear positive things from the Minister.
	We have already discussed post offices, but pharmacies are also under threat. The quality of life in local communities depends on local post offices and local pharmacies. We cannot do without them. The Government must find a way of reversing their course on post offices. We want more post offices to open and to protect the ones that we have already, not the continual decline first of rural and then of urban post offices. Before it is too late, the Government must stop taking the same route in relation to pharmacies. We must protect small, local pharmacies.
	Much can be done to encourage small shops; for example, by changes to the uniform business rate. The car parks of large out-of-town supermarkets are, in effect, untaxed, because the business rate is levied only on the building and not the car park. If we changed the taxation system so that it took account of land value rather than rateable value, supermarkets could be taxed on their extremely profitable large car parks and small shops in towns would pay lower taxes—[Interruption.] It is, in fact, Liberal policy.
	We have heard about facilities for children. Sure start is a success, which we need to build on, and the Government ought to be making announcements about increasing the extent of that initiative. We also need a coherent policy about play areas and green areas. After all, under Conservative Governments, playing fields were sold off. We need to protect playing fields and local councils need to register them.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Green: I will not because I am going on—not yet for quite so long as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
	I also want to touch on rural areas, as hon. Members might imagine given my constituency. The Government have introduced the term, "rural-proofing". I welcome it, but they need to show what it means. I shall give an example from my constituency. We have a community—Bishop's Castle—that hit the highest level on all the Countryside Agency's sheets of the most deprived areas. The people there have been trying to get together a sports and arts facility, which is much needed because anyone in Bishop's Castle has to make a 20-mile round trip to get to one of those facilities. The Government have so far failed to find any route to help to fund that facility. Bishop's Castle is in a rural regeneration zone and has objective 2 status, but such facilities do not meet any of the necessary funding criteria, although, quite frankly, people are deprived by not having them.
	In rural areas, social exclusion for the young and elderly is very much dictated by the complete lack of transport provision. Many parts of my constituency have no bus service, and some of them have a bus service that comes once a week. That shows the level of the problem. How can people enjoy a coherent lifestyle if they are reliant on that?
	I want to finish by considering what the Government need to do to improve the quality of life for local communities. As I have said before, local problems need local solutions, so the Government need to devolve as much power as possible to local communities. They need to take power from Westminster to the regions and local councils. That decentralisation will empower local communities and allow them to make the choices and decisions that work in their areas. None of us has a magic one-size-fits-all solution, and if people pretend that they have, they are, quite frankly, barking mad.
	We also need to revitalise local democracy. Proportional representation for local elections—we hope that it will be introduced in Scotland shortly—would have a major impact, by ending the monopoly one-party states that we see in local government, and that can be said of all parties.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Green: I will not give way because I have taken some time and I am now winding up.
	The Government also need to enable the provision of first tier councils—community councils—where they are wanted, even in urban areas. If people decide, perhaps in a local referendum, that they want a low-level council, let them have one. My constituency is entirely parished—there are first-tier councils throughout my constituency—but other hon. Members will have none in theirs. Very often, such councils can be the most effective way to deliver local solutions.
	Finally—this has been touched on—what will really make a difference to the quality of life of many people in our local communities, particularly pensioners, is giving them extra income in their hands. Scrapping the unfair council tax and replacing it with a tax based on ability to pay would give those on low incomes more money. The Conservatives introduced the council tax in 1991, and the fact that their spokesman has said nothing about it confirms that they still support the council tax. They obviously still think that it is a fair tax. Council tax is no longer sustainable, and we have heard the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire say that that it is approaching the level of unsustainability.
	The Government are now considering local income tax as part of the balance of funding review, but the day after that was announced by the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, the Prime Minister announced in his monthly press conference that the Government will never introduce local income tax. The Deputy Prime Minister and all the Ministers under him are clearly open-minded about local income tax, but they have already been overruled by No. 10, saying that they cannot do it. I would very much welcome the Minister clarifying in her winding-up speech whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would be able to persuade No. 10 that local income tax should be introduced if the balance of funding review recommends it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Limited time is available to the debate, which covers a broad canvas, as has been acknowledged. I hope that not all hon. Members whom I call will wish to cover its entire breadth.

Alan Whitehead: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was indeed going to commence my remarks with the observation that the title of the debate could be treated not as a subject but as a coat hanger on which various coats could be placed, so as long as hon. Members put at the end of each metaphorical coat the words "the quality of life for local communities". In that respect, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) did not disappoint. Indeed, he covered a huge area on that basis.
	I should like to talk not just about the quality of life in local communities, but about the role of Government in enhancing it. Of course, as the hon. Gentlemen reflected, that is a huge subject, encompassing the health of our environment, the planning and organisation of our cities, the investment that we might make in sport and culture, the way that we deal with the housing needs of our population and the way that people can transport themselves around to get to those amenities, and so on.
	I very much welcome the debate, broad ranging though it may be, because it signifies the coming together of joined-up government. Addressing the quality of life in local communities is, frankly, something that, historically, Governments have not done, and it is still fair to say that it is regarded as something of a fluffy issue; it is not really the stuff of high politics. Governments of the right traditionally have not addressed the issue. They have agreed that the market will sort it out and that the role of the Government is to maintain basic order, to hold the ring or, to extend the metaphor slightly using Roy Hattersley's telling phrase,
	"to hold the ring while the biggest and best trained boxers beat the smaller and less trained boxers to a pulp."
	However, even where Governments of the left have considered that holding the ring was not enough and that one needed to intervene positively through governance to change the conditions in which people lived because the market itself would not do so, the intervention was, historically, essentially restricted to bricks and mortar.
	As we have heard this afternoon, bricks and mortar are very important. Whether we have a roof over our head counts rather a lot in our quality of life. If we have a roof over our head, whether we can have locally available to us a doctor's surgery, a post office, amenities for entertainment, shops and so on also count. Even if we have all those, whether we can get to them matters too—for example, people may not have cars.

Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that perhaps quality of life is a better indicator of how Government should distribute funding than some of the cruder underlying indices? For example, that measure that would recognise explicitly that people living in materially more affluent areas of the country might also suffer some downsides from living in those high-pressure, economic growth areas. That seems to be something positive that we can reach for in the debate.

Alan Whitehead: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he might be pleasantly surprised. Rather than responding to that point in particular, I hope to develop my argument a little.
	The design of our communities is very important, but other intangible factors are at work, governing the quality of life in our communities. For example, the health of our communities depends not only on the important building blocks of the physical arrangement of the environment, but on the less tangible world of the provision of public goods. I refer to goods in the sense that they are goods, instead of bads. That is often a fragile raft. Sometimes communities with relatively poor physical provision of amenities can thrive, whereas others with better provision can occasionally flounder, and who can be said to have the better quality of life thereby?
	Communities that flourish will, for example, be those with a high degree of what we might call social capital—the glue that binds people together; the richness of community associations; the web of sports clubs, allotment societies, mother and toddler groups; or even more informal social contacts that enhance mutual support and improve the quality of life in those communities.
	I recently met groups of semi-randomly invited constituents to discuss quality of life. Among many other topics in the discussion, I asked them one central question, which could be considered as a positive or a negative: what one thing would most improve the quality of their life if they consider that they have a good quality of life; or what one aspect of their life that they might lose would most damage that quality of life? Those who consider that their quality of life might improve tend to mention specific things that might help: for example, accessibility of services. Those answering the negative questions, however, say that the biggest single thing that would reduce their quality of life would be to be suddenly deprived of their friends, neighbours and community.
	Where do Governments come into this? It seems to me that they come into it in a number of ways on which I believe our Government are beginning to gain traction. First, there is the question of bricks and mortar, which is a contentious issue in itself. It is not enough simply to provide: we need to think publicly about how to provide and in what way we provide. My mind was cast back to an interesting statement made in 1929 by the architect Le Corbusier:
	"We must never . . . lose sight of the perfect human 'Cell', the cell which corresponds most perfectly to our physiological and sentimental needs. We must arrive at the 'house-machine', which must be both practical and emotionally satisfying and designed for a succession of tenants. The idea of the 'old home' disappearing and with it local architecture, etc., for labour will shift about as needed, and must be ready to move, bag and baggage."
	That essentially describes the layout of many of our towns and cities today. We still have the legacy of Le Corbusier with us in terms of high-rise blocks, the soulless centres of our cities, and the way in which that design of our cities has removed community rather than enhanced it. It is therefore not without significance that the Government's plan for a radical increase in house building in the south-east of England is called not a plan to build houses but the communities plan. That plan appreciates in a way that Le Corbusier and his disciples signally failed to do that communities must be sustained and must work, and that a key role of Governments is to provide the wherewithal to make that happen.
	It is interesting to look at a number of research projects into how communities can be seen to work in terms of how urban areas are designed. A study in San Francisco made a clear correlation between the location of particular houses, the number of friends and social contacts that inhabitants of those houses had and the extent to which those houses could be involved or less involved in their communities. Houses that were, for example, on the edge of dual carriageways or in the middle of busy intersections had less social contacts, whereas houses that were designed in areas where community interaction was possible had much higher levels of social contact and interaction.
	That brings me to an apparently ephemeral although important issue, certainly in terms of the debate on antisocial behaviour: trust in communities. It is interesting that the Government's strategy unit document on social capital considered, perhaps curiously, that measuring the degree to which people trust strangers in communities might be a good index of the extent to which communities work. It is interesting to make international comparisons of responses to the question, "Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you cannot be too careful when dealing with people?" As a nation, we come badly down the list—31 per cent. of us answer positively to that question, whereas in countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada, more than 50 per cent. of people answer positively to that question. There are also substantial differences within the United Kingdom in terms of who answers positively to those questions.
	In that context, work on ensuring that people feel safe in their environment and are able to trust people and use amenities in their communities without being in fear of their personal safety or being afflicted by neighbours from hell, is important. It seems to me that the underlying idea of much work on antisocial behaviour is not simply to stop antisocial behaviour but to build a more positive aim: to ensure that there is trust within communities and that people are able to go about their business and make use of their communities, therefore enhancing publicly the quality of life in communities, because people are not too afraid to use community facilities in the first place.
	It is interesting to consider in that context the Palo Alto experiment, which took place a little while ago in America. A number of researchers left a number of cars with the bonnet up—or, as they would say in America, the hood—in different parts of America. They then observed how long it took before the car was taken to pieces. In some of the six different locations, the car was taken to pieces within two hours. In Palo Alto, however, not only was the car not taken to pieces but, after two days, when the researchers got thoroughly fed up with hiding behind a bush watching the car and came out and drove it away, the researchers were reported to the local police on the grounds that they were acting suspiciously. That sort of index of how communities work, whether they work well and whether there is trust and safety in communities, is vital in relation to discussions of how Governments can make a change in the quality of life in communities.
	Of course, the role that Governments have under those circumstances is different from the traditional one of doing things and making things happen. Instead, the role is one of capacity building, providing opportunities for communities to work, supporting communities when they do work, making sure that measures are available for communities to build and sustain themselves, and making sure that those work. It is also about ensuring that the needs of the environment and the people are held in balance. When we debate the question of building more houses, is the issue simply that we should not build any more houses in certain places because the quality of life of particular people will be degraded? Alternatively, if we are trying to build communities as well as housing estates, does such a public good require a public discussion about how it works?
	The rewards in terms of better public health, community cohesion and less crime, which underpin and support the capacity building of communities in terms of their social capital, are considerable. They are not easily measurable by traditional means, however, and certainly not by numerical targets, which some have attempted to use. Such projects and programmes are perhaps also unattractive to Governments because the results do not turn up in six months, they do not give good headlines, and they take many years to turn around and change communities. I commend the Government, in relation to their communities programme and other proposals, on resisting the temptation to opt for short-term gain and on investing in the long-term future in making these changes to how communities work and how they do so effectively.
	It is essential that Governments go down this route, because unless we find ways of supporting and building capacity in our communities, and of joining up government to do it, the inevitable consequence is the Le Corbusian vision of the isolated worker and individual—in their community but not of their community—simply going about their business and not doing anything else with their lives. It seems to me that communities are the heart and the stuff of life of our country, and supporting them, thereby enhancing the quality of life of those communities, is an essential role for Government to undertake.

Andrew Turner: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). I do not propose to compete with him in thoughtfulness, but his was a thoughtful speech which I will read again with care after this debate is over.
	My constituency has a wonderful quality of life—let there be no doubt about that. Consequently, my constituents do not, in the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who is no longer in her place, want a Member of Parliament who wants to change the world, even for the better. They want a Member of Parliament, a local authority, and most particularly in this context, a Government, who will not get in the way of their enjoyment of their quality of life and will not diminish the quality of life that they enjoy. Many of them subscribe to the view that I have outlined several times, which I shall repeat once more, that no problem in the world is so great that Governments, of any colour, cannot make it worse.
	The key factor that determines people's quality of life is how well and comfortable they feel in their communities, and I shall examine several of the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test with that in mind. He did not identify why communities in Norway, Sweden and Denmark were so trusting—perhaps he did not know. He did not identify which communities in this country are more trusting than others. I do not have any evidence to identify those communities either because I did not know that he was going to mention them, but I shall hazard a guess. The communities that are most trusting are those that are the smallest and most stable. There is confidence in Norway, Denmark and Sweden, which is not shared in all parts of this country—I cannot speak for Canada at all—since there is more community cohesion in those countries because of cultural homogeneity and for reasons of stability.
	We must carefully address the extent to which our communities are changing and the speed at which that is happening. I have a lot of information about that because many people choose to move to my constituency from London, other metropolitan areas and parts of the country that would have been regarded as pleasant suburban areas until quite recently. Many people no longer feel happy in such places, so they have moved to my constituency and other parts of the south of England, especially. They move not only for the wonderful weather that we enjoy but because they are dissatisfied with the areas that they counted as home before they moved. When such people arrive in my constituency and enjoy the quality of life there, they become worried about the well-being of their friends, daughters and sons who remain in metropolitan areas.
	There are two key problems in metropolitan areas about which we must be clear: the cost of housing and the quality of public services. The Government are right to try to address those, although they have chosen the wrong route in some instances. Conservative Members are right to identify the problems as key issues, too. The factors that drive people out of metropolitan areas to areas such as mine are the quality of public services, schools and hospitals, the cleanliness of streets, the amount of graffiti present and the fear of crime.
	A further problem is overcrowding, and part of that problem is associated with migration and alienation. People are becoming alienated from the communities in which they have often lived all their lives. If areas change rapidly, as change they do, people start to feel insecure and choose to move. There is large pressure on London and south-east England owing to migration. The Government accept that there are 100,000 migrants a year, while organisations such as Migration Watch UK suggest that there are 200,000, so a new town the size of Slough is required in the already overcrowded south-east every one or two years. Given that, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appreciate why people move from such areas and why they worry about overcrowding. We must address the stability of communities.
	We must consider the quality and calibre of local government and its ability not to interfere or intervene, but to set the right priorities. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) talked about where money to fund local government should come from. It is easy to propose a different taxation system—we did that twice when we were in government—but the taxation system does not make a difference to overall demands on the local public purse. The quality of decisions taken by local councillors makes the difference because they have to balance the amount that they take from the public and are given by the Government with the amount that they choose to spend on providing what are hopefully good quality public services.
	Irrespective of whether local income tax, the rates system, the community charge or the council tax is used, there must be a means of redistribution to areas with greater need or fewer resources from areas with less need or greater resources, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said in reply to my intervention. It is not wholly honest to suggest changing the system unless the method of distributing resources among local authorities is also considered. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ludlow is now listening to me. Perhaps he would like to tell us how the system of distributing money among local authorities could be reformed, because it is that system that matters, not the means of taxation.

Matthew Green: However a local government finance system is created, there will have to be some money redistributed from the centre to balance it out. Irrespective of whether houses or local income are used as the basis of the tax, a redistribution system will be needed. The details of such a system have managed to mess up Ministers with responsibility for local government throughout history, so I would not dream of outlining them during a mere intervention.

Philip Hammond: rose—

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for his honesty. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will help him further.

Philip Hammond: I would not dream of trying to help the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). Does my hon. Friend agree that given the hon. Gentleman's admission that the so-called local income tax would have to be redistributed nationally, it would be nothing more than a Liberal Democrat stealth increase in the basic income tax?

Andrew Turner: Indeed, it would be. I think that the Liberal Democrats admit that their proposal would lead to a 25 per cent. increase in income tax for most people in this country.

Richard Younger-Ross: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The system would effectively move money away from the national income tax pot toward the local income tax. Most people would therefore experience no difference. The system would lead to savings because of lower collection costs.

Andrew Turner: If the only advantage of the local income tax that the hon. Gentleman can put forward is that it would change collection costs and that a lot of jobs would be lost in many local authorities—perhaps that would be justifiable, however—he is not getting us very far. A local income tax capped at 5 per cent., which I believe to be the Liberal Democrats' proposal, would represent a 20 per cent. increase in income tax for everyone throughout the country on average. What matters is not the way in which the tax is collected but how the Government distribute money between rich local authorities, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and poor local authorities such as mine. It is no good for the Liberal Democrats to propose a local income tax as if it is a magic wand, because the distribution method of the revenue support grant must be right if a difference is to be made.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Turner: I shall not, if I may.
	It makes good sense to spend locally—that is an equally important consideration. If a local authority such as mine were advised by the county treasurer that it needed an 11 per cent. council tax increase to meet the effects of last year's Government redistribution, it could say, "But we're not getting enough money from the Government". I could then say that I would lead a delegation to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the relevant Minister could generously give us an additional £1 million—as he did—with more to come in future years. If those who run my local authority then said, as they did, "Well, that's wonderful. Now we'll put the tax up by 14 per cent.", they would not be exercising careful control on their expenditure.

Alan Whitehead: Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's strictures about good sense when it comes to spending in local communities, and his view that a local income tax is a bad idea, would his party approve of returning the setting of the business rate to the discretion of the local community?

Andrew Turner: I suspect that my party would not approve of that, for the good reason that some local authorities drove businesses out of their areas before the nationalisation of the business rate. I am sorry that that solution had to be adopted, but business could not afford the taxation placed on it. That had a detrimental effect in the long run on the economy and jobs in local communities.
	If local authorities are to set the level of local tax, and I believe they should, that brings with it the responsibility of applying common sense to the taxes they set. To do that, they must identify priorities, which sometimes involves making difficult decisions. Sometimes the priority is to keep public lavatories open, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) reminded us. At other times, it is to provide a bus shelter, as on the Pan estate in my constituency, which my local authority told me it did not have enough money to do, or to provide litter bins on the seafront at Sandown, something else that my local authority told me it did not have enough money to do. It could involve not providing a cycle track that costs £600,000 or a pop concert that costs £400,000, two of the things that my local authority, which does not have enough money for litter bins, bus shelters and public lavatories, has provided.
	Making such decisions requires sense among local politicians and that requires effective accountability. When they stand for election, they must set out what they intend to do and be held accountable for that. If they do that and are accountable at the end of those four years, we will have a much better quality of life and of local government.

Siobhain McDonagh: I do not feel as challenged as some to discover a definition of quality of life. My constituents are clear about what affects their quality of life. I accept that it is the view of suburban south-west London, but what reduces their quality of life, whether they are owner-occupiers, council tenants, private tenants or people who have bought under the right to buy, is the antisocial behaviour of other people in their area. People tell me that graffiti, abandoned cars, noise nuisance and the state of the parks affect their quality of life.
	Such problems are often laughed at. Every time the Government attempt to have a crackdown on chewing gum on pavements or litter in the streets, a national newspaper laughs at them, presumably because the journalists do not suffer from the same problems, but any Back Bencher from any party would agree that those are significant issues for their constituents. From their connection with their communities, MPs know that those things seriously affect people's lives.
	I congratulate the Government on being brave enough to take on some of those problems, for saying that something needs to be done and to consider changing the law. Although changing the law in itself does not resolve the problem, it might help to bring about a different climate that clearly states what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Perhaps those requirements were not necessary before because we all agreed on what was the right thing to do. Years ago, we all accepted that sticking a mattress or three-piece suite out on the street and expecting the council to collect it was not right. Unfortunately, today, we have to say those things clearly and boldly.
	Shifting people's opinions will not happen this year or next year. We need a long-term effort to make all of us respect the quality of life of others. The invisible pendulum between the individual and the community has swung too far in favour of us the individual rather than us the community. That goes for people no matter what their housing tenure or whether they are wealthy or not. One of the most insulting things I often hear, although people do not mean it to be, is the suggestion that antisocial behaviour exists only on council estates. For me, it exists everywhere, irrespective of income, perhaps to lesser or greater degrees.

Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Lady see the breakdown of respect in communities as one issue that affects antisocial behaviour? I was struck by something said earlier about people engaging within their communities. Surely the problem is that people are reluctant to engage when they see antisocial behaviour because they have no real sanction to apply and cannot expect to receive respect for the position they take.

Siobhain McDonagh: That brings me back to the idea that things have swung so far in the interests of the individual that we find it difficult to say absolutely and clearly what is right and wrong, and we expect a backlash if we try to do something about such behaviour. The hon. Gentleman is right that people are fearful of checking others because they worry that the authorities will not do anything to help. That is why I congratulate the Government on introducing legislation to deal with what are often seen as small issues. It is right that policing priorities include such problems and that authorities have to take them seriously. One local police inspector told me, "The calls I get are about antisocial behaviour. My chief inspector never calls me in to discuss antisocial behaviour. He wants to talk about robberies and burglary. If only I could deal with some of the small things, I am sure we would find that we could tackle the larger ones."
	I carried out a survey of my constituents to discover their views on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. I wanted to ensure that I was getting it right and representing their views. I was also highly disturbed by Liberal Democrat comments on how it was wrong to move on gangs of youths on street corners. I tested my approach by writing to 2,000 constituents. I set out the Bill's major themes and asked them for their views. The response to that consultation was larger than any I had received before. Indeed, so many questionnaires were returned that one morning I could not open the door to the office.
	The results were telling. More than 90 per cent. of respondents supported the toughest measures, including the banning of spray paints to under-18s, giving the police powers to move on intimidating gangs of young people, and imposing fixed-penalty fines for graffiti on anyone aged 10 and above. The support existed across the constituency from people in all tenures of housing and from all income groups.

Richard Younger-Ross: The problem with the dispersal laws is that young people have become an object of fear to older people, whether they are a threat or not. The proposals are in danger of alienating law-abiding young people from doing what young people like to do, which is sitting around talking and having a yak. The police were called out a few years ago in my constituency to a serious drug incident on the seafront at Teignmouth because an elderly person had seen young people snorting coke. When the police investigated, they discovered that they had lemon sherbets.

Siobhain McDonagh: I think that it was right that the police attended the call, and when they saw what was happening they were not going to move anybody on or cause any problems. The Bill does not say that people can be moved on if they gather in one place or that gathering is prohibited; it applies only to cases in which antisocial behaviour is occurring.
	It is a mistake to believe that antisocial behaviour is an issue for older people. Young people are more likely to be hurt or intimidated in the street. What would the hon. Gentleman say to the young man in Pollard's Hill in my constituency who is in his late teens and so fearful of the gangs who gather on his street corner that he feels that if he does not behave like them he will be attacked? He finds himself involved in behaviour that he wants no part of, but he feels that he needs to take part to protect himself.

Andrew Turner: I have every sympathy for that young man, and I do not disagree with some of the Bill's contents, but does not the hon. Lady accept that the Bill deals with the symptoms? How does she propose to deal with the causes?

Siobhain McDonagh: I do not agree. We are introducing a legal framework for what is, and is not, publicly acceptable, so we will see a change in behaviour. There is a law requiring people to wear a seatbelt, and most of us are law-abiding citizens, so we comply. There is a role for such legislation in a society where the forces of social control are changing.
	Returning to prosaic matters, I want to thank the Government for taking up my idea about removing graffiti from street furniture owned by statutory undertakers—people who can dig up the roads. One thing that irritates me as an MP is receiving large, glossy brochures about social responsibility from big corporations that are not prepared to maintain their own street furniture. That failure leads to a reduction in the quality of life of my constituents.
	When the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill completes its passage through the other place, I hope that it will say that such companies, which include the water boards, the Strategic Rail Authority, London Transport, Telewest and BT, have a responsibility to look after their street furniture, and that if they do not do so the council will step in and recharge them. I am excited that that will happen, and I am pleased that Merton will be one of the 12 pilot areas from 1 April. We will see how effective the measure can be. It is not about punishing those companies, but if we, as individuals, have responsibility, companies have a responsibility to look after their street furniture.
	I am also delighted that the Government are tackling these issues through "alleygator" schemes. We all have experience of those highly successful schemes, whereby back alleys are blocked off, preventing fly tipping, stopping people gathering behind other people's homes and making the environment much safer. In one ward in my constituency that has an "alleygator" scheme, we saw a 65 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary. The schemes are a simple solution, and, if we can get the community together to talk about them, they have a tremendous knock-on effect in that people get to know their neighbours. It is right that people contribute to "alleygator" schemes. Our experience in Pollard's Hill is that people are more than happy to pay some of the cost of putting up the gates.
	I know that, to some people, these issues are minor, but to our constituents they are not. Abandoned cars, which start out being an eyesore in the street and end up acting as torches when they are set alight, frighten everyone, so I am glad that the Government are to introduce a target for London next October that, after being reported, abandoned cars have to be removed in 72 hours.
	The fact that we are debating these matters is a fantastic step forward and it shows that people's issues are taken seriously by this place. I urge the Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that their policies will be effective. The Government have provided enormous funds for youth services, Connexions services and the children's fund, and I am not convinced that the money is always spent wisely or properly. Sometimes, the basics are lacking; we get grand schemes when what young people want is a place to gather. We get services that are available from nine to five, when what communities want are evening and weekend facilities. We need to bear down on the organisations involved to ensure that they deliver for the people who pay for them to exist.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If those hon. Members who remain to speak in the debate confine their remarks to about seven minutes, it should be possible to accommodate them all.

Andrew Rosindell: I commend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her remarks. She said that Government funds are not always being spent in the most effective way. I agree. Indeed, it is often the case that when the Government or other public bodies spend money, nationally or locally, those funds are used inappropriately and squandered.
	That is why I believe that the best way forward for local communities is to have low taxes, including council tax, and more power for individuals and organisations to make their own decisions, as free from local government as possible. I served as a local councillor for 12 years prior to becoming a Member of Parliament. I also spent four years as a community area forum chairman. During my years on the London borough of Havering, I learned one thing very clearly—local democracy must be truly local. I am afraid to say that our current system does not help us.
	I should like to focus on the meaning of what we are talking about when we discuss communities. I heard the Minister refer to neighbourhoods, communities, wards and parishes, and others have spoken of districts. What do we mean by all those different units? We have not defined a true local community. One of the basic problems is that we have not looked at boundaries. For local government and Parliament, the boundary commissions often create anomalies. In my constituency we have communities that are completely divided between boroughs and wards, just to make up numbers. Such anomalies create divisions in communities by splitting up natural neighbourhoods. I say to the Minister that we have to get right the boundaries before we can get down to restoring pride to communities. I could give many examples from my own borough in which anomalies give rise to difficulties that could be avoided.
	We need to encourage people to take pride in their communities. That means involving not only local councils and those of us who are elected to serve but people who are truly engaged at a local level. That means involving churches, local sports organisations, schools and a range of other groups. I visit such groups every week, and since becoming an MP I have visited between 300 and 400 local community organisations that cover a multitude of interests. They have a genuine interest in what goes on locally, and we should involve and support them.
	I have always objected to the fact that in my constituency, on the outskirts of Greater London, we pay so much for services, yet the money is drained towards central London. We contribute an enormous amount towards the costs of the Greater London Assembly, we pay for all kinds of quangos and central London organisations, and we do not benefit from that. If we are to improve communities, we need to ensure that the funding, and its organisation, is directed to where it is needed. That means ending the current mess in local government finance. It also means ending the explosion of partnerships, agencies, working parties, forums, taskforces, committees, boards, panels and a multitude of other quangos that constantly justify their existence by producing a stream of paper, including reports, strategies, consultation documents and so on. I am fed up with receiving those things in the post and hearing what all those bodies are supposed to be doing. I agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that those Government bodies and institutions are not spending our money or our constituents' money in the most effective way.
	We must therefore oppose more government, which is why my party and I oppose regional government. The sooner that we can have a referendum to get rid of the London Assembly the better. The sooner that we can restore power to local communities by getting rid of the power that we have foolishly handed over to institutions such as the European Union the better. Those bodies affect what goes on in local communities, because all kinds of rules and directives are flooding in. Local government is hamstrung in its goal of serving its communities and instead must bow to Government and EU directives. All those documents must be put on a huge bonfire, and I do not doubt that a future Conservative Government would have the courage to do so.
	I am not going to talk for much longer because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. However, housing is vital—we must restore the right to buy and give local housing association tenants the right to purchase their home. We must ensure that the police are given the respect that they deserve and power to do their job, which is important to local communities. The police have lost confidence in their ability to do their job—a job that, as we know, needs to be done. We need to restore discipline in schools and society in general. We need to support local shops, libraries and other community facilities, as has been mentioned, as well as post offices and pharmacies, all of which are vital.
	Ten years ago, I was among those Conservatives who were sceptical of the policy of ending the tradition of keeping Sunday as a special day; a policy that has led to many local community shops having to close, particularly in rural towns and villages. I supported the Keep Sunday Special campaign because, although I believe strongly that we should have as much freedom and choice as possible, a balance has to be struck. It is important that Members from all parties learn such lessons. We must ensure that parks are places where families and children can feel safe and happy, because that is not the case in many parts of the country. We must support the youth service in local authorities, which has been underfunded for too long. We must clamp down on antisocial behaviour, including graffiti, vandalism and the yob culture. We must also tackle general decay. I hope that the Minister will take note of many things that have been raised today, and that that will translate into positive action. It is very well for us to talk about these things, but our constituents want action that will result in genuine progress and make our communities better for everyone. I hope that the Government will take all those points on board.

Ian Lucas: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for reminding me of the reason why he is a Conservative and I am a socialist. He believes that government can do bad things, but I believe that it can do good things. Government, both nationally and locally, can achieve great things in our communities. Our role as Members of Parliament is to become involved and facilitate achievement and progress in our local communities.
	I accept, however, that Governments can do bad things, and some of the things that they did in the past 20 to 30 years have led to long-term problems, with which we are still dealing, caused by the breakdown of communities. For example, in my constituency in 1983, one in five of the adult population was unemployed. That figure has fallen to 3 per cent, but the fact that 20 per cent. of people were unemployed in 1983 is still having consequences today. I heard the litany of complaint from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), but I have a litany of complaint about the Government who ran the country between 1979 and 1997, as what happened then has had a profound effect on my community, and on society.
	The present Government are trying to confront and deal with those problems, but we must accept that they are profound and long-term and that there are no instant solutions. There has been much praise from Members on both sides of the House for the sure start scheme, which we all support. That scheme is designed for the long term—we are only beginning to see its good effects—and in 10 years' time, we will see its beneficial consequences and those of similar schemes. Similarly, people who lost out at school are coming into education through lifelong learning programmes. Their lives are being changed, so they form stronger bonds within their families and create the type of family unit and small community that leads to co-operation rather than conflict. Consequently, in such cases, we no longer have to deal with the antisocial behaviour that we have heard so much about.
	Although tackling the problems is a long-term project, their consequences are immediate. It may not be true in Ludlow but it is certainly true in Wrexham that instability in a small number of families and communities has resulted in a lack of discipline and respect, and is having a disproportionate effect on the lives of others in the community. The structures of local government do not reflect the demands and wishes of the people whom I represent. Local government is still geared towards the departmental provision of services such as schools and social services, and has not woken up to the fact that the main demand is for security and stability. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was a tremendous piece of legislation, but local government has still not fully taken it on board. I learned from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the good things that are being done in her local community, but in Wrexham we have a lot to learn and a lot of progress to make in achieving co-operation between different agencies in the town and ensuring that the security that my constituents want is delivered.
	The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) referred to the danger of too many organisations dealing with similar issues. The all-party regeneration group recently discussed the problem of various organisations in a small geographical area pursuing similar agendas and applying for money from similar sources. That leads to a situation in which groups effectively compete with each other. People in such groups often attend the same meetings to discuss similar topics, but end up making similar funding applications to the same organisations. There is a sense of meeting and organisation exhaustion among such people.

Richard Younger-Ross: In Teignbridge, we have very good inter-service agencies that try to avoid that problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said, local Members of Parliament should talk to their agencies to ensure that such groups work.

Ian Lucas: I am frustrated and disappointed by the patronising approach that the Liberal Democrats seem to be taking. I am well capable of representing my constituents and seeking co-ordination, but despite my efforts—I assure the hon. Gentleman that they have been strenuous—the number of organisations involved and the influence that I have had have been somewhat limited. I am not alone in voicing that complaint; a number of colleagues have done the same. I call on the Minister to recognise that that is a problem and to consider ways of avoiding it. The current structures mean that too many organisations are pursuing similar aims.
	The other important issue is the relationship between those structures and local government. Currently, they do not fit into the local government structure, which has a serious long-term effect on local government. Why should someone become a councillor if they will have a limited influence on money that is awarded to organisations that are often unelected quangos rather than elected bodies? While I support the idea that money should be dealt with at the lowest level, the reality is that we need to ensure that local government, which is, after all, elected, is involved in the process. I ask the Minister to look closely at the structures that are dealing with antisocial behaviour and to press upon local authorities the need to put in place proper structures to deal with that overriding concern and the multiplicity of agencies that are developing in our communities.

Andrew Selous: It is a pleasure to take part in this thoughtful and heartfelt debate. I am especially pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will respond to the debate, as she has the power to take decisions on two particular issues that severely affect my local communities.
	My constituency finds itself in the middle of the Milton Keynes and south midlands sub-regional strategy, which plans to double the number of houses located in it. My area is one of high housing need and my district council already has plans to build some 6,000 to 8,000 additional houses, many of which will be affordable houses, to provide the housing that local people need. I fully support that plan. The Government's plans, however, are of a wholly different magnitude. They seek literally to double the number of households in my constituency.
	I can tell the Under-Secretary that surveys organised by my local authorities show that 95 per cent. plus of local residents have grave concerns about those plans. They have concerns that there will not be sufficient local jobs, as there is no way in which we can provide employment for such a number of people. That will mean an increase in commuting on roads and railways that are already very crowded. The building will occur across wide stretches of the green belt, which has always been protected—we have been given no good reason as to why that land should go—and the environment of local people will be very adversely affected.
	A better watchword for the Under-Secretary's housing proposals for London and the south-east—I should be grateful if she focused on this point, as it is of great interest to my constituents—would be local housing for local people across London and the south-east. My constituents object very strongly to the location of London overspill housing in our constituency and three other areas around London. We want local housing for local people across London and the south-east. That is better for local communities. I do not believe that the Government's proposals to build huge out-of-town housing estates will secure the proper community spirit to which so many hon. Members have referred. The history of post-war housing from the Easterhouse estates on the edge of Glasgow onwards has shown that large housing estates can be built on the edge of towns, but they do not have the community spirit and voluntary groups that are a feature of existing communities. I have huge worries about that, as do many local people.
	There is also a big worry about infrastructure catch-up. In Leighton Buzzard, a town that always used to have more doctors per head of population than anywhere else in the country, we are already two to three GPs short, and there are extreme concerns among local people that the proposed housing expansion will not come with proper medical facilities and all the other local services that we need.
	This is a heartfelt plea to the Minister. In speech after speech, hon. Members talked about the importance of local people deciding on local issues. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned local councillors. What upsets me most is that, pretty much universally, my local councillors, of whatever party, object strongly to the plans—so what price our local democracy? When my constituents say to me, "Why should we bother to vote in local elections when we cannot influence locally the biggest decision to affect our area for 50 years?", I cannot give a good answer. I have grave worries about the fact that the proposed development corporation will have a minority of elected councillors.
	Antisocial behaviour is a huge problem in my constituency, as in those of other hon. Members. Let me propose a couple of ideas that would assist in that. Many of my constituents who are initially hopeful that the police will be able to impose antisocial behaviour orders find that when the police go round to try to get the necessary evidence, local people are too terrified for their own safety to come forward with it. I suggest a huge increase in the number of independent witnesses who can, unbeknown to the perpetrators of the crimes—for that is what they are—provide evidence of what has been going on without fearing for their safety. I commend that idea to the Government: it would make a big difference and allow more antisocial behaviour orders to be made.
	Many of my constituents feel trapped and imprisoned in their homes as a result of the legislation by which a person selling their home has to say whether they have an antisocial behaviour problem with their immediate neighbours or in their immediate environment. Many council tenants who have bought their houses say, "We are desperate to sell our property back to the council or to a registered social landlord, because we are effectively trapped here." That is because the council housing allocation policy has put close to them people who are causing antisocial behaviour. Owner-occupiers can be similarly affected. That is wrong. I commend to the Minister the idea that former council houses can be sold back at a fair and agreed price.
	In my constituency, there are seven unauthorised gypsy developments. I have nothing against gypsies: people are free to choose to lead their lives as they please. In planning law, however, it is the law-abiding majority—the settled community—who are severely discriminated against, because gypsy communities are able to buy arable land, wholly against the planning system, and turn it into large encampments sub-divided into different plots. That is causing enormous problems.
	Fly tipping is a huge problem in my constituency. I suggest that fines be made much more severe to encourage those who believe that they are cheaper than the proper disposal costs to think again. The issue should be made much more of a priority for the police. Small builders and businesses should be able to use tidy tips: only very large commercial companies should be prohibited from doing so.
	I hope that the Minister finds those ideas helpful.

Yvette Cooper: With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond in the short time available to a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) gave a thoughtful account of the impact that design and infrastructure can have on the way in which communities behave. He also talked about trust and the role of friends and families.
	The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) raised concerns about the geographical definition of the word "community". We can sometimes be over-simplistic in envisaging that all community groups are good, whereas some are unfair, oppressive or discriminatory, whether to their members or to outsiders. We are right to talk about the importance of sustainable and inclusive communities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) raised the important issue of voluntary groups in his constituency, and I should be happy to look into that further. Many local strategic partnerships are engaging effectively with local community groups. The hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and for Romford all talked about different forms of local government finance. I guess that we can look forward to an increasing amount of debate on the interesting alternatives being offered by Opposition Members, especially given the rise to prominence on the Conservative Benches of someone with such expertise in local government finance, the architect of the poll tax himself. I look forward to Conservative Members following their leader on that one.
	Several hon. Members raised the issue of housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned housing market renewal, and I agree that it is important that housing and economic regeneration should go closely hand in hand. The hon. Member for Ludlow talked about the need for a greater amount of affordable housing, particularly in the south-east, and mentioned the section 106 arrangements. We are looking at those provisions, because we need better to address the issue of getting more affordable housing into new developments. That is something that we are extremely interested in.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised concerns about various issues in his constituency, of which I am well aware. I would say to hon. Members that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot complain about the pressures on house prices and the lack of supply of affordable housing while at the same time complaining about the programme for additional house building across the south-east, which, frankly, we need. Hon. Members have also talked about antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) described her constituents' concerns, and the importance of alley-gating. Sometimes these things are so obvious. She was right to say that this issue is critically important to many of our constituents.
	This has been a debate about the quality of life of our constituents. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that an important factor in people's quality of life relates to income, and I agree. Income issues are extremely significant, and that is why I would ask him what the impact on people's quality of life was when interest rates were at 15 per cent. and people could not afford to repay their mortgages. What impact did it have when unemployment hit 3 million? My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was right to say that the impact of that was felt for many years. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that we were building on the legacy of the previous Conservative Government's economic policy. Frankly, we have been dealing with the effects of that policy for decades, and that is why so many problems relating to the quality of life in the most deprived communities have been so severe, and why we have had to address them now.
	People in this country know very well the impact on their quality of life of steady economic growth and job growth year after year, of having low inflation year after year, and of having investment in their local communities, public services and quality of life at local level. They do not want to turn the clock back to a time of boom and bust, insecurity and greater inequality. Finally, may I say—
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [30 October].

African Development Strategies

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]

Hilary Benn: I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to discuss Africa and its development, and to seek to answer the question of what progress we are making towards reducing poverty for the people of Africa. This is a critical time for the continent—a time of opportunity as well as challenge. I say that because some of the most intractable conflicts in the region are showing signs of being resolved, and many countries are beginning to show signs of progress towards democracy and good governance, while at the same time, many countries in the north are beginning to recognise that a partnership with the countries of Africa, based on a commitment on both sides to do better, can bring real benefits in the long term.
	When we think about Africa, we tend to dwell on famine, war, poverty, disease and civil unrest. Africa has all of those and more, and I shall return to those problems later. Africa is not only about the images we see on the television, however. It is also about real progress, although we need to do much more. The number of major conflicts in Africa fell between 1990 and 2000 from 19 to two. That includes Sudan, where there is an emerging peace process. There is a national transitional Government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where an estimated 3 million people lost their lives during the fighting in what has been described as Africa's hidden first world war. Tanzania, though one of the poorest countries in Africa, has enjoyed a large degree of stability, and despite being geographically part of a volatile region it has remained largely outside the recent conflicts.
	Economic growth in Mozambique has been significant in recent years. Malawi has begun to implement an International Monetary Fund programme of sound policies and structural reforms, while Uganda has seen a substantial decline in HIV prevalence, from 20 per cent. in 1991 to 6.5 per cent. in 2001. The House would agree that that is a testament to the power of the political leadership that has been given in that country.
	Rwanda and Kenya have made the transition to democracy. The peaceful handover in Kenya following the election last December is a good example of what can be achieved, because the election of President Kibaki and the new National Rainbow Coalition, or NARC, Government were found by all observers to be freer and fairer than what had gone before. The defeated Kenya African National Union Administration, who we should not forget had ruled since Kenya's independence 40 years earlier, handed over power quietly and in accordance with the will of the people.
	Rwanda has made extraordinary progress since 1994 and the unimaginable nightmare of the genocide in that country. It is now at peace. The economy is stable and growing—real gross domestic product growth averaged almost 10 per cent. a year from 1995 to 2000—and the Government have made progress towards establishing a democratic and inclusive state in a country with no history of democracy whatever, although we would like to see more.
	Those countries and many others in Africa still face considerable challenges. After all, the continent's share of world trade has halved in a generation. For example, 315 million people in the region live on less than $1 a day and 500 million live on less than $2 a day; maternal and child mortality are increasing; a woman has a one in 13 chance of dying in pregnancy or childbirth; HIV/AIDS has contributed to an increase in child mortality—75 per cent. of the world's sufferers live in sub-Saharan Africa; and 23 million girls in the region do not go to school. This is unacceptable in an increasingly interdependent world.
	If sub-Saharan Africa's performance does not improve, 23 countries will fail to meet the millennium development goals—the targets that we, together, in the international community have set ourselves to measure the progress we are making, or are not making, in lifting the people of the world, including of Africa, out of poverty.
	What are the major challenges that face sub-Saharan Africa? The first thing we have to acknowledge is that Africa's problems are complex and interrelated. The impact of one worsens that of the other; so, for example, civil war exacerbates HIV, which in turn increases poverty, which in turn has a bad effect on infant health and maternal mortality.
	In the same way, making progress will involve action on a number of fronts, and there are four main underlying problems that I want to highlight. The first is that nothing can be achieved without growth. Countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda have improved governance and their commitment to reform. They have performed well. Generally, the most dramatic growth rates in Africa have been in those countries that are rich in natural resources, particularly oil and minerals.

Tom Clarke: On the issue that my right hon. Friend has now raised, has he had the opportunity to consult our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on their excellent energy White Paper? In visiting various African countries, it has struck me that many of them are very rich in energy resources—Nigeria and Angola, for example, in oil—although those have to be developed and there has to be investment. However, that will be helpful to us as, I understand, a net importer of those important products.

Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the significance of those natural resources to the countries of Africa that benefit from them—it is important that they be used, although they must also be used effectively.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned Nigeria and Angola, which are good examples of countries in which, in the past, wealth has not been used as it might have been to maximise the impact of poverty reduction. That is one of the big issues for the continent.

Win Griffiths: My right hon. Friend speaks of maximising resources. Might it not be a good idea for many African countries to study what has happened in Botswana, where the Government have made significant and purposeful efforts to ensure that resources reach the people through, for instance, education and health projects?

Hilary Benn: Botswana is indeed a useful example. I believe that it has experienced some of the highest growth rates in Africa over recent years, although, as my hon. Friend will know, it has also experienced a substantial problem with HIV/AIDS. I shall say more about that shortly.
	Another obstacle to growth is conflict. Since 1997, the least developed countries in Africa have achieved half the growth rates of those in Asia. More foreign direct investment is needed. Sub-Saharan Africa still attracts less than 1 per cent. of global foreign direct investment, despite more optimistic forecasts.
	As globalisation has affected Africa, its terms of trade have deteriorated and commodity prices have declined. Insufficient jobs and incomes are being created for the poor, and too few resources are being generated for health and education. Progress on trade policy will be essential if Africa is to become competitive, but most countries lack the capacity for trade policy analysis, negotiation and implementation, and the capacity to ensure that trade reform leads to poverty reduction.
	As I think the whole House will agree, the current system simply does not work for the least developed countries. Africa's share of world trade halved between 1980 and 1999, and is now less than 1 per cent. That is one reason for our belief that trade rules must be improved to benefit the world's poor, and that is why getting Doha back on track is so important. The challenge for us to meet together is ensuring that the Doha round delivers benefits for African countries and their poorest citizens.
	Whatever the reasons for the failure of the talks in Cancun—there was a debate about it not long ago in Westminster Hall—I believe that failure to make progress from now on would be the most damaging development for the world's poorest countries. Africa stands to get a better deal through multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation, where developing countries constitute two thirds of membership. The one good thing that came out of Cancun was the fact that the voice of such countries was heard more loudly and clearly than it had been heard during any of the previous negotiations, and I for one welcome that unreservedly. Multilateral agreement, however, is infinitely preferable to regional and bilateral agreements with bigger economies.
	We also need freer and fairer trade rules if developing countries are to benefit. The United Kingdom Government are determined to do all that they can, working with the European Commission and other European Union member states, to make progress on the development round towards fulfilling the commitments that we made at Doha. We are committed to trying to secure progress, because it is critical for African countries. I am thinking in particular of agricultural market access, a reduction in trade-distorting subsidies, and special and differential treatment for poorer countries.
	The second fundamental problem faced by Africa is conflict, which kills development as well as people. It has affected 200 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. That is why supporting African efforts to resolve armed conflicts is so important. The United Kingdom has tried to do that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Burundi, Angola and west Africa, especially Sierra Leone. Some of those countries are now on the road to peace. In some, better progress is being made; in others, the situation is still fragile. But countries need the assurance of long-term support, and one of the challenges from now on will be to provide assistance so that the countries and regional organisations of Africa can be involved more effectively in trying to prevent or resolve violent conflicts on their continent, and to undertake peace support operations.

Andrew Selous: The Secretary of State mentions conflict, but in one state in southern Africa—Zimbabwe—there is the most horrendous internal conflict. As a result, some 6 million people are close to starvation, and there is horrendous discrimination against many of the black population and, according to some of my constituents, many of the Asian population. Given that, for whatever reasons, the regional power—South Africa—does not seem willing to take a lead on this issue, is the Secretary of State prepared to urge his colleagues in the Foreign Office to raise this issue very seriously indeed within the United Nations, and to put the sort of effort into Zimbabwe that they put into Iraq earlier this year?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman's description of the terrible situation in Zimbabwe is absolutely right. An indication of that is that this year, the international community will be responsible for two thirds of the provision of food—a reverse of last year's proportion. Frankly, if this debate had taken place 25 or 30 years ago and someone had said that Zimbabwe would have to import very large amounts of food, people simply would not have believed it. Zimbabwe was seen as the bread-basket of Africa—that was the phrase that tripped off everybody's tongue.
	There has been, and is, no lack of effort to try to resolve the situation, such as the measures that are in place and the decisions that the Commonwealth has rightly taken. If we do not indicate clearly that there are principles of good governance that we adhere to—a point to which I shall return—the people of Zimbabwe will not get the better future that they deserve. I accept the point that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) makes about the need for international attention, but that needs to be combined with a political process that is capable of resolving the problem internally. We very much hope that that will eventually occur.

Andrew Robathan: I do not disagree with what the Secretary of State says about Zimbabwe, but I should point out that according to a meeting that I attended last week, food aid is being used as a tool by ZANU-PF, which is directing the deliverers of such aid—non-governmental organisations—through the World Food Programme, to areas generally consisting of ZANU-PF supporters. And where food aid is distributed to non-ZANU-PF supporters, the police, paramilitaries and so-called war veterans are taking it from them—we are talking about aid that is provided by our taxpayers and EU taxpayers—and delivering it to whomsoever they wish. Would the Secretary of State like to comment on that?

Hilary Benn: This is a matter of concern, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the statement made by the Zimbabwe Government earlier this year on food distribution. Following that statement, the donors got together with the World Food Programme and agreed a memorandum of understanding. Such problems have occurred, but the systems are in place to try to ensure that, if they are brought to the attention of the WFP and the international community, they are resolved. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw any such instances to my attention, I undertake readily to look into them. We are very clear about one thing: we will not accept the use of the international food aid that we provide, together with other donors in the WFP, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. I undertake to investigate any such cases because I am as anxious as he is to resolve them.
	Returning to support for conflict resolution, a peace plan for training and operational support has been developed between the G8 and African countries. We support in principle the EU's plan for a peace support operations facility for Africa, which Paul Nielson referred to when he attended the African Union summit in Maputo at the beginning of July. We also need to support African efforts to eliminate the flow of illicit weapons in the continent, which fuels much of the fighting. The G8 has made progress in developing and implementing common standards in arms export controls, and the UK has pledged more than £20 million to combat the global proliferation of small arms. That includes the development of regional programmes in east Africa, the great lakes and southern Africa.

David Drew: I apologise for missing my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks. Does he accept that resources and conflict resolution are interrelated? In the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we cannot solve the problem of mineral exploitation unless we get all the surrounding countries to support non-exploitation; however, the same point is also true of the Nile, for example. Several countries could be seen to gain through conflict in other parts of the region, so we must surely encourage a degree of regional support. I hope that the Government will do everything that they can to get those countries to recognise that.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen the complex inter-relationship between the exploitation of resources and the fuelling of conflict in Sierra Leone, with its diamonds, and in the Democratic Republic of Congo with its variety of resources. The peace process is now emerging in the DRC and the transitional national Government are in place. A great deal of time, effort and support has been invested to make that happen. My hon. Friend is right to say that, without the backing of neighbouring countries, it is much more difficult to find a long-term and lasting resolution of problems.
	The third constraint is governance, which has already been touched on in some of our exchanges. Effective institutions and accountable government are, frankly, essential if we are to have a chance of reducing poverty, encouraging growth and securing private sector investment. We need to collect revenue, which includes taxes and customs revenue, to administer the law, to rebuild roads, to teach children and to deliver services. It is precisely because more Governments need more institutional capacity—a major issue—that we support the work of the Department for International Development in strengthening capacity-building programmes. That means working with country organisations that focus on economic and corporate governance in Africa.
	Africans have the same right as others to transparent and accountable government, so we are providing anti-corruption assistance in Malawi, Uganda, and Nigeria. We are providing support for the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group, which brings together 14 Commonwealth countries and includes peer evaluation. We are also encouraging the work of the intergovernmental action group against money laundering in west Africa, a similar group under the umbrella of the Economic Community of West African States. Finally, we are taking a lead on the extractive industries transparency initiative, which touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). It is about encouraging countries that are dependent on oil, gas and mining to pilot this new approach to transparency—reporting what is paid and what is received. That is the best way to bring everything out into the open.
	I think that the fourth major challenge is HIV/AIDS, because 29 million Africans are infected with the HIV virus. The equivalent of twice the population of London has now died of the disease. The impact of the pandemic, both nationally and in communities and individual households, is truly shocking. It is hard for the House to understand, because in this country, for example, one would have to go back to the period of the black death in order to understand the scale of the disease's impact.
	The World Bank has warned that several African economies are facing collapse and that family incomes are being decimated. In some countries almost all the gain in life expectancy over the past 30 years is being wiped out, and the shortage of food in southern Africa is making the situation worse. There are growing numbers of orphans and vulnerable children: more than 11 million children in Africa have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS—and projections suggest that that may double by 2010.
	The epidemic has the potential to both overload and devastate capacity, with health services overstretched and education systems collapsing. In a country where teachers are dying of HIV/AIDS faster than they can be trained, it is hard to ensure that all children have a primary school education. Economic growth is reduced, poverty deepens and social cohesion can disintegrate under the pressure of that sort of assault.
	The UK is committed to working to try to combat the pandemic. We are, according to UNAIDS, the second largest donor of HIV/AIDS assistance in the world. Our HIV/AIDS assistance in Africa supports what African countries are already doing, and we strongly urge the international community to join us and other donors in working through AIDS programmes that are nationally based, nationally owned and nationally directed. The challenge is to harness all the effort and interest of the international community while ensuring that what we do on the ground works to make a difference.

David Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on what they are doing to combat the problem of HIV/AIDS. However, would he agree that more could and should be done to combat the problems of longstanding diseases such as sleeping sickness, leprosy and the Bilharzia snail, which, until recently, was hardly mentioned at all? Does the Minister have any specific plans to tackle those sorts of diseases?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an important point and, of course, the global fund addresses the questions of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as well as the other diseases to which he refers. The Department has a longstanding interest in those diseases and we have research programmes, in collaboration with medical researchers and others, to try to make greater progress. The diseases of the affluent world receive much investment of time, energy and resources to discover means of treatment, and the benefit of that work in relation to HIV/AIDS is beginning to be available to developing countries, as the price of antiretroviral drugs comes down, but my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to those other diseases.

David Borrow: My right hon. Friend mentioned the global fund. The UK position on the global fund has been much criticised. I recognise that we make substantial donations to combating HIV/AIDS, but I often receive documents criticising the UK position on the global fund and contrasting it with other countries, including the United States and European countries, which make larger contributions to the global fund.

Hilary Benn: The UK Government's spending on tackling HIV/AIDS has risen from £38 million in 1997 to £270 million. That is a substantial increase. We have put our money where our policy commitment is to be found. We are a strong supporter of the global fund and our commitment is now for $280 million up to 2008. That includes an additional $80 million that Baroness Amos announced in July when she attended a conference on the subject. It is a significant commitment of money and, as I mentioned earlier, we are the second largest donor on HIV/AIDS in the world, according to UNAIDS. However, everybody needs to do more and I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes.
	Enabling Africans to have access to effective HIV/AIDS treatment should be an international priority, but we need to acknowledge that the best response will involve a combination of prevention of infection and the care and treatment of infected people. It is not a question of a conflict between basic health care systems and trying to make treatments for HIV/AIDS available, as the price comes down, because developing countries are already beginning to think about what they can do, as they tackle the pandemic, to use antiretroviral treatment to help to keep people alive.
	Strong leadership will also be necessary to remove the stigma of HIV/AIDS. That is why I mentioned the progress that has been made in Uganda, because its president provided strong political leadership, which has led to real progress. It shows what can be done.
	The last few years have seen a major shift in African effort in seeking to address the continent's problems that I have described. Without doubt, the most important has been the New Partnership for Africa's Development, or NEPAD. It aims to tackle HIV/AIDS, to reduce poverty and to sustain long-term economic growth. It is committed to improving governance, building African peacekeeping capacity—about which I have spoken—and creating the right environment for investment in Africa. The most important aspect of NEPAD is, in the jargon of development, the emphasis on mutual accountability. In essence, it says that the international community has obligations to the people and countries of Africa to provide support, aid and progress on trade reform, but in return the African Governments and leaders recognise some responsibility for the state of their countries. The truth is that we have to work together to improve the contribution that we each make to solving the problems.
	The NEPAD arrangements have some radical features. For example, the African peer review mechanism, to examine the performance of African countries in economic, social and political governance, will begin in Ghana this year. We support that unreservedly. It is about sharing experience, which allows countries to learn from each other and better understand what they need to do to make progress. The UK is committed to supporting NEPAD, and development in sub-Saharan Africa. The best evidence of that is that our development assistance for Africa will rise to £1 billion a year by 2005–06. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent. in three years. We are committed to ensuring that 50 per cent. of all new overseas development assistance commitments made by donors since Monterrey will go to sub-Saharan Africa. In that way, we can provide some of the predictability that those countries need if the resources are to be best used.

Tony Baldry: Is it not disappointing that there has not been more mutual accountability required of Zimbabwe from South Africa and other countries? President Taylor of Liberia was indicted by the UN-authorised war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, but the Government of Nigeria have given him asylum. Is not that even more disappointing? Nigeria and South Africa are two of the leading African nations, but they are not helping to contribute to mutual accountability.

Hilary Benn: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to acknowledge that mutual accountability cuts both ways and applies to everyone. I responded earlier about Zimbabwe—I think before the hon. Gentleman entered the Chamber—but in respect of Liberia, I would say only that I think that people would acknowledge that the decision to get Mr. Taylor out of the country was an essential precondition to making some progress there, and to allowing the ECOWAS force to go in with the support of the Americans. Now that that has happened, the position in Liberia is more stable than previously, but that does not detract from the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the importance of following through on commitments to mutual accountability.

Win Griffiths: I recognise the difficulties in connection with dealing with Charles Taylor, but has my right hon. Friend thought about giving Nigeria some financial aid, either from British or UN funds? Nigeria is not an immensely wealthy country, but it has devoted very considerable resources to peacekeeping in west Africa.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend knows that Britain has a substantial programme in Nigeria, but the way to make progress is by means of the EU's proposal for the peace support facility. We support that proposal in principle, although there are details to be worked through in connection with how the European development fund could be used to make it possible. If we can get it right, I think that that facility would meet the real need identified by my hon. Friend. The greater willingness that now exists to take on the sort of responsibility that he described is often blocked by lack of money.
	That is also a factor when it comes to meeting the millennium development goals. Last week, I attended the high-level dialogue on financing for development in New York. The clear consensus that emerged was that we need to do more in respect of finding more resources so that we can meet those goals, and DFID is working with the Treasury to explore with other partners how best to achieve that. It is also why the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in respect of the international finance facility—which would enable us to raise more money now for development—is so important.
	The amount of money is not the only thing that matters, however. The quality of aid is also important. That is why, in all this work, we must continue to align what we do with what other donors are doing. We must also harmonise the way in which we work: it is no good having loads of donors queueing up if they all want their own programmes, reporting arrangements and face-to-face meetings with representatives of developing country Governments. The impact on the capacity of recipient countries to cope with such demands is enormous, and aid is not used most effectively as a result.
	It is not good enough merely to nod when people talk about harmonisation. All of us in the international community are all more or less guilty of doing that. We must do more to harmonise our actions, because that harmonisation is an expression of the multilateralism to which we are committed.
	I know that several hon. Members want to contribute to the debate so I shall bring my remarks to a close. Africa is a major test for the world. We know why it matters and we understand better than we did in the past how a combination of things will really make the difference: more aid and debt relief will provide the finance to get children to school or to treat them for preventable diseases; opening up trade will enable countries to earn their way out of poverty; dealing with conflict and ensuring good governance will maximise the chances that people will want to invest in a country, thereby creating the jobs, employment and economic growth that will improve people's lives; and tackling HIV/AIDS will sustain human capacity in the face of the epidemic.
	We understand better that all those things need to happen if we are really to make progress in helping the people of Africa to build a better life for themselves and their families. After all, that is all we seek for our own children; it is what the parents of Africa seek for their children, too. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that we help them now to succeed in realising that goal.

Caroline Spelman: I wrote to Mr. Speaker and to the Secretary of State to explain that, unfortunately, owing to a long-standing constituency engagement I shall not be in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches, so I apologise to the House for that.
	At the outset of the debate, I want to put down a marker. As the Government have winkled some time out of the Whips to spend on the subject of international development, we are disappointed that the Secretary of State did not choose to discuss Iraq. We tabled two urgent questions, because although there have been two written ministerial statements on funding for the reconstruction of Iraq there has been no opportunity to question Ministers. The House, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may think that that has nothing to do with Africa, but it does, as unfortunately the Secretary of State has been unable to persuade the Chancellor that there should be extra money for restructuring, so instead it will have to come from DFID's core funding. As a result, we do not know which projects will be cut, and in which developing countries. We have no guarantee that the countries will not be in Africa, so we are concerned that we have missed an opportunity to clear up that matter.
	The challenge of Africa remains vast, as the Secretary of State eloquently outlined. The continent is home to 34 of the world's 48 least-developed countries, and the gap between Africa and the rest of the world is growing. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) described Africa as a failing continent. Her phrase has the power to shock, but I instinctively recoil from the judgment implied in it. It sounds as though new Labour is writing off Africa, which I am sure is not what the Government intend.
	No one can deny that Africa has particular problems, but what is wrong with the statement is that it masks the real progress that is being made—the kind of progress to which the Secretary of State referred. What is also wrong is that it contains no flicker of recognition of where we have made matters worse. The effect is to exonerate ourselves from blame and to remove the moral obligation to help. Nowhere is that more true than in Zimbabwe.
	Conflict, corruption and terrible sickness hold back many African countries, and, together, they contribute to the whole of sub-Saharan Africa being hopelessly off-target to meet the millennium development goals. Is a whole continent to stand condemned for having failed to meet some internationally agreed benchmark of improvement? Should we blame developing countries for not meeting those targets when we could have done more?
	By far and away the biggest problem facing Africa is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I am sorry that it was only fourth in the Secretary of State's list; for me, it comes first. The proportions of the pandemic defy imagination, but that does not mean that we should be beaten by it. We should fight it. Seventy per cent. of the world's HIV/AIDS sufferers live in southern, sub-Saharan Africa. In Kenya, one person dies from AIDS every minute.
	In Malawi, I had the privilege of meeting a man who cares personally for 78 orphans and the same number of widows. I thought that community orphanages were local institutions to house orphans, until I visited the country and found out that they amount only to occasional visits to children who still live in the huts where their parents died.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, however, there are examples of real progress, and Botswana's network of AIDS clinics is surely an example of best practice. AIDS is not just a health issue; it is a development issue. The disease is wiping out the most economically active people. It is attacking the very roots of society. Africa is becoming a continent of grandparents raising their grandchildren, or orphans fighting for survival.

Jenny Tonge: I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned AIDS orphans so early in her speech. Does she agree that, even if we manage to control the growth in the number of AIDS cases anywhere in Africa, the fact that there are already 6 million AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa is a huge problem for the future? Does she ever speculate on what will become of those children? Will they become child soldiers? Will they become involved in civil war? Will they go into prostitution? Does she think that we, as an international community, should put much more emphasis on the needs of those children?

Caroline Spelman: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. We stand united on the question of raising the salience of AIDS orphans, and I do speculate about the issue. I sometimes think that the solution will be on a scale that no one has thought of hitherto. To put things into proportion, I was speculating that it would almost take something like every family in this country adopting an AIDS orphan to arrive at the scale of support that those children need. We do not provide that scale of support currently.
	Sadly, the global health fund cannot successfully simultaneously tackle AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis with its limited resources. I wonder whether the Secretary of State agrees that something practical could be done if the fund's limited resources were targeted to provide free antiretrovirals for at least the pregnant women who are HIV-positive. The continent might then stand some chance of raising a generation free of that terrible disease. I feel that the Government have allowed AIDS to slip down the agenda. There is public complacency about AIDS in this country, and it is very difficult to get our countrymen and women to comprehend the scale of the problem when they hear that they can get the necessary life-prolonging drugs on the NHS. The Government must do much more to get this subject back up the agenda. If Africa is failing, it is doing so because it is dying, and we have the resources, if not to cure people, at least to sustain life.
	Conflict, as the Secretary of State said, is another reason why Africa is failing to meet the millennium development goals. Many states are still involved in active conflict; others are dealing with the aftermath; and many remain volatile. I have asked the Secretary of State before what is the Department's model for working with a failed or failing state, but the Department does not seem to have an answer. Conflict prevention also seems to have slipped down the agenda. I feel that we do not learn from the examples of failed states and apply those lessons to new scenarios. We as a country continue to give aid to countries that knowingly perpetuate conflict.
	I find it extremely frustrating that the United Kingdom is one of Rwanda's major donors, yet there is clear evidence of Rwandan involvement in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The departmental report for this year says that the amount of aid that our country gives to Rwanda will increase. I should like the Secretary of State to explain to the House how he can feel comfortable about giving much more to a nation that is making life so difficult for its neighbour. We supported putting an end to tied aid, but the Government have somehow failed to make aid effective in the promotion of good governance. Surely the Government have the power to threaten to remove some of that aid if that involvement in the Congo continues.

Tom Clarke: Some hon. Members were in the Democratic Republic of the Congo a few weeks ago, where we met the President and others. He did not take the somewhat negative view that the hon. Lady is taking about Rwanda; nor did he suggest that we should punish the poor in Rwanda because we are trying to find a solution in the Congo. Does she agree that the dialogue begun by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short)—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is continuing it—with Rwanda, Uganda and the DRC is extremely important if we are to find a genuine solution to that conflict?

Caroline Spelman: The right hon. Gentleman has long and respected experience of international development. The dialogue is not working, however—it is not stopping rebels going from the Rwandan and Ugandan border to perpetuate the conflict in the eastern Congo. I am simply looking for a tool—clearly not to penalise the poor in that country, as no one in this House would wish to do that—with which to bring the message to the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda that perpetuating the conflict in the Congo must stop.

Hugh Bayley: May I tell the hon. Lady that during that visit, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), I and other Members had an interesting discussion with members of the new interim power-sharing parliament? They took the view that what was needed to get the so-called negative forces—the Rwandan irregular forces—out of the eastern Congo and back to Rwanda was aid to Rwanda so that those forces would have a livelihood if they went back to their own country. The aid that our country gives to Rwanda is part of the solution to getting the irregular Rwandan rebels out of the eastern Congo and back across the border to their own country, where they can prosper if a rural livelihoods programme is provided through our aid and assistance.

Caroline Spelman: Again, I respect the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in and knowledge of international development. I lack confidence in his theory, however, because current amounts of aid to Rwanda are not stopping the incursions by those rebels. Why should we therefore put more money in the same direction? I do not find the argument compelling. I want to find a tool that will work to pull the rebels out. The most recent report on my desk—I am not sure when right hon. and hon. Members visited the Congo—shows a deteriorating rather than an improving situation. All Members must face up to the fact that what is happening in Kinshasa is very different from what is happening in Ituri.
	On the wider subject, I feel that all too often the Department turns a blind eye to examples of poor governance. Tanzania, for example, when given $3 billion of debt relief to be spent on health and education, bought instead a new air defence system. Uganda, too, has been rewarded with aid for very good things, such as reducing AIDS infection, increasing primary education and access to water, all of which are laudable. Meanwhile, a terrible civil war rages in northern Uganda, and in 2002 there were 4,500 child abductions alone. Therein lies my concern: the Government's policy of writing what amount to blank cheques to Governments means that the aid does not necessarily get to the people who need it. When we cannot rely on Governments, surely we must get aid to the people who need it in other ways: through non-governmental organisations, faith-based organisations and even the private sector. We must find those other ways.
	As the Secretary of State said, one of the mechanisms that should help good governance is the New Partnership for Africa's Development. We had high hopes for NEPAD, but it has fallen at the first fence with Zimbabwe and has led even the African press to be sceptical. The Kenyan Daily Nation newspaper calls NEPAD "wishful thinking" and Botswana's Mmegi newspaper commented:
	"History shows that African leaders see no evil and hear no evil when dealing with errant leaders."
	I was very struck by the views of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who said that after her recent visit to Zimbabwe she gained
	"an abiding impression that expectation of Zimbabweans from all backgrounds is that the British Government should be able to do something to help".
	Although the behaviour of African leaders towards Zimbabwe is seriously wanting, our own Government are not without blame. It is wholly unacceptable for the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe to deteriorate while our country seems to be a passive bystander. I am continually contacted by Zimbabweans who are crying out for someone to help. More than half the Zimbabwean population face food shortages. The regional hospital in Shangani, which served 12,500 families, has closed because it has insufficient food to feed its patients. The water supply in Harare was turned off. Elderly people commit suicide because they cannot afford to stay alive and people bury their loved ones but have to keep guard by the graves because people are stealing coffins. How long does that have to continue before we do something? [Hon. Members: "What?"] Let me come on to that.
	I welcome the Government's recent announcement of food aid because such aid is vital, but it is like putting a plaster over a bleeding wound, especially if the aid is diverted to those who should not be the first priority. When will the Government take a lead in the international community and tackle the root cause of the problem? What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that Zimbabwe is at the top of the agenda during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in December? I was asked what we should do. The people of Zimbabwe really need free, fair and democratic elections that are overseen by international election monitors so that they can secure the future that they want without the fear of violence and intimidation.
	To the man-made disasters of Africa are added the natural disasters of erratic rainfall and attendant famine. In the southern African region as a whole last year, 14 million people faced starvation. The Department for International Development made the mistake of minimising the scale of the famine by initially describing it as "localised shortages". In addition to that, 13 million people in Ethiopia need food aid this year. Do the Government accept that they were far too slow to react to the warnings of famine, and will the Secretary of State tell the House what they have done to improve their response this year?

Tony Baldry: Before my hon. Friend moves from NEPAD, may I say that the problem is not only Zimbabwe? There is absolutely no reason why the Government of Nigeria should not put Charles Taylor on a plane back to Freetown tonight. He has been indicted by a United Nations war crimes tribunal. I cannot understand why on earth Nigeria, which is a leading member of the Commonwealth and the most prominent Commonwealth country in west Africa, is giving him political asylum—there is no justification for that. He was indicted for war crimes in Sierra Leone by a UN tribunal, so he should go back. Unless that happens, it is difficult to understand how NEPAD can work.

Caroline Spelman: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point better than me. For the sheer credibility of NEPAD, it must be seen to tackle the situation in countries such as Liberia and to be making peer review work; otherwise, the scepticism that I mentioned will grow.

David Borrow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I shall press on because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
	Turning to the way in which our nation has made matters worse for Africa, does the Secretary of State accept that our continuing agricultural protectionism is one of the worst offenders? I am sure that the whole House will agree that the failure of the trade talks in Cancun was a disaster, but what confidence does the Secretary of State have that the deal that was in the air at Cancun can be resurrected? Our protectionism, our failure to open our markets and our failure to reform seriously the common agricultural policy all stand as a barrier to the development of poor African nations. That is of special importance for Africa because such a high proportion of people are employed on the land, and often its countries' only exports are agricultural. Do the Government accept that they have botched the privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which used to provide the seed-corn capital for agricultural investment but has now switched its strategy to investing in mobile phone companies and shopping malls? It has also shut several offices in Africa.
	Related to international trade is the issue of debt relief. A paper published by the International Monetary Fund last week stated that the initiative for heavily indebted poor nations is not relieving some of Africa's poorest nations of their debt burden and is unlikely to produce a sustainable economic situation. At the Labour party conference, the Government said that 23 of the world's most indebted countries have qualified for debt relief, but qualifying and receiving are not the same thing. Only eight countries have completed the debt relief process. The Government must not paint it better than it is. Will the Secretary of State concede that the debt relief process is failing and in need of serious reform? Does he accept that the process needs to be quicker, simpler and more transparent? Without proper sustainable debt relief, many African countries will remain completely incapable of moving forward.

Hilary Benn: On debt relief, will the hon. Lady acknowledge that countries receive the benefit of no longer having to service the debt at decision point, so the benefit comes at that stage even if proceeding to completion takes a bit of time? It is the number of countries at decision point that matters, because that is when they get the benefit by spending less money on servicing the debt, as she knows, and more on health, education and other things.

Caroline Spelman: I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State, but what worries me about the process is that we are taking a series of snapshots and that countries that we thought had completed the process or were on the way to completing it have become unsustainable again. That is an important argument. We should not be complacent and console ourselves with the thought that those countries are out of the woods and safe once and for all, because often they are not. The process does not cater for that and we should not give ourselves a pat on the back ahead of time.
	I feel passionately that the Government pay lip service to the people of Africa and its problems. [Interruption.] Let me remind Labour Members that the Prime Minister said he would like to heal the scars of Africa, but his rhetoric makes not one jot of difference to the Zimbabwean people crying out for help, to the AIDS orphans in Malawi hoping someone will notice them alone in their huts, to the women of the eastern Congo scared to leave their houses for fear of being attacked by the soldiers, or to Zambia, which was promised debt relief back in 2000 and is still up to its ears in debt. It might do the Prime Minister good to look at the number of times the Government have picked at the scar and made it bleed again. Africa does not need any more of the Prime Minister and this Government's rhetoric. It needs effective solutions to tackle the problems that constantly undermine its healing process. Only then can Africa move forward.

Ann McKechin: I welcome a debate on Africa in the main Chamber. I wish there were more of them. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party group on heavily indebted poor countries. I want to concentrate on the importance of debt relief for African development, in particular the policies instigated by the World Bank and IMF as conditions for that relief.
	The good news is that debt relief has been shown to work and is a vital component of allowing African countries to meet the millennium development goals. For those countries that have received assistance, there has been a substantial increase in health and education spending. Several countries have been able to abolish primary school fees, although they in turn have had to cope with huge surges of pupil numbers, with classes of 100-plus not unknown in Kenya and Uganda. However, only 19 per cent. of the poorest countries' debt has been cancelled and only five of the 42 eligible nations have consistently met the conditions and achieve uninterrupted debt relief.
	The bad news is that the HIPC initiative does not go far enough and helps too few countries. Even the IMF and World Bank accept that many HIPC nations will not have sustainable levels of debt when they reach completion point. The formula, which is based on a very optimistic prediction of export growth rate that has not come to pass, will not work for many nations and needs to be urgently revised if we are to achieve significant poverty reduction. I know that the Government are working on that problem.
	No one would argue about the need to impose conditions on adherence to democratic processes, or to impose financial controls to prevent fraud or misuse of funds and to ensure that they are used for basic services such as health, education and, as we heard this afternoon, the prevention of HIV/AIDS. However, there is increasing disquiet about the continuing practice of the IMF and the World Bank of insisting on conditions that are not directly relevant to debt relief, such as trade liberalisation and privatisation.
	The all-party group hosted a meeting last month that was addressed by Demba Dembele of the Forum for African Alternatives from Senegal. He spoke about his country's history, which parallels many of the experiences of sub-Saharan Africa. In the 1960s and '70s, Senegal achieved significant economic results through its agriculture and the strength of its exports. However, by the mid-1970s, a succession of droughts, combined with a series of external shocks and the oil crisis, led to an economic downturn, and the Government were forced to turn to the IMF and World Bank for assistance.
	Those institutions in turn applied structural adjustment programmes—the well known SAPs—broadly according to a "one size fits all" philosophy based on cuts in public spending, tight monetary and fiscal policies, export-led growth, liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of state-owned enterprises. Far from rescuing Senegal from its debt problems, the implementation of those policies since the early 1980s has aggravated the debt burden and undermined the goal of poverty eradication. Low or stagnant economic growth, deterioration in several social sectors and only modest improvement in others has characterised this period of structural adjustment throughout the continent.
	In Senegal, debt ratios exploded, and by 2002 the external debt accounted for 70 per cent. of its GDP. In addition, over 70 per cent. of the bilateral debts was composed of arrears. At the same time, the percentage of the population classified as malnourished has increased over the past 10 years, and nearly 80 per cent. are trying to survive on less than $2 a day. The IMF-World Bank SAP policies forced substantial trade liberalisation along with the dismantling of the country's public sector, while at the same time cheap, subsidised imports from the developed world severely affected the agriculture sector, which employs more than 70 per cent. of the population.
	The IMF appears to ignore the history of economic growth in most advanced industrial nations, including our own, which relied heavily in their earlier years on selective trade protection policies. Between 1996 and 2000, four of the top five fastest growing developing countries—Guinea, China, Mozambique and the Dominican Republic—were classified as having trade-restrictive policies. Similarly, during the 1990s the IMF ranked Mauritius, which left the SAP in 1988, as one of the most protected economies in the world. But between 1975 and 1999, that country achieved annual per capital growth of 4.2 per cent., a substantial amount, and a reduction in inequality.
	After years of denying that debt was a problem, the IMF and the World Bank finally agreed, thanks in large part to the efforts of our Government, to tackle the crisis with the HIPC initiative. The much-derided SAPs have been replaced with plans drawn up by developing countries themselves. That is welcome, but there is increasing evidence that the poverty reduction strategy papers have retained the dominant influence, and veto, of IMF and World Bank officials. Typically, PRSPs require privatisation of public utilities, deregulation and removal of subsidies, and promotion of exports and foreign investment.
	I am not arguing that policies such as liberalisation and privatisation are wrong in themselves, but I am sure that the Minister accepts that if such policies are to work, they must be implemented at an appropriate stage in a country's development, with effective Government regulation that is capable of being enforced and with public and democratic support. Sadly, there is no evidence that the IMF and the World Bank are capable of dealing with such subtleties. Surely, if we truly believe in democracy, these decisions are best left to those who live and work in the countries concerned.
	In Senegal, one of the conditions of debt relief was the privatisation of its state-owned electricity utility, Senelec, but in industries such as water and energy, there is only a small number of transnational companies that are realistically able to bid for such operations. As a result, Governments are increasingly forced to offer sweeteners to attract the few foreign investors available to take on the contracts. Typical of the energy sector are long-term contractual arrangements that enable companies to be the sole supplier of a service. Frankly, a one-off invitation for tenders from five or six companies that are well-known to each other, followed by a 25 to 30-year monopoly before retendering does not deliver much competition or efficiency. For Senegal, instead of the predicted efficiency gains, the transfer of control of its electricity provider into the hands of a French-Canadian company resulted in profit outflows, no new investment and increased power outages, which contributed to a 1.5 per cent. decline in its gross domestic product.
	By contrast, there is no sound evidence to suggest that public sector involvement in, or control of, public services is necessarily less efficient or effective for poorer nations. There is growing evidence to suggest that both the public sector and alternative service suppliers such as not-for-profit companies can achieve levels of efficiency equal to or even greater than those achieved by standard privatisation programmes. However, the rigid approach followed by officials of the IMF and the World Bank has done little to encourage the search for alternatives that better suit individual economies. Our own solution of a national rail authority would not accord with IMF criteria.
	The IMF and the World Bank believe that PRSPs should allow the involvement of civic society only if that facilitates a debate on issues such as the social impact of policy measures and the pace and sequencing of reforms, and that poverty reduction strategy papers should not consider whether reforms involving liberalisation and privatisation are appropriate in the first place. Despite their attempts to achieve greater democracy and transparency, decisions made by democratic representatives have been ignored. In December last year, the Zambian Parliament voted for a motion urging the Government to rescind their decision to privatise the national bank as part of their debt relief programme. That decision was accepted by the President, but almost immediately there were reports that the IMF was threatening to withdraw debt relief. After talks with the IMF, the Government admitted by the start of April that they were privatising the bank after all. Until now, the IMF and the World Bank have viewed such opposition to their policies as simply the murmuring of vested interests, but there have been repeated incidents of such opposition throughout the developing world, particularly in Africa, in both national parliaments and civic society, as well as many reports of unrest caused directly by IMF policies. Not all of those incidents can be easily dismissed and they should not be used as an excuse to bypass the democratic processes of poorer countries.
	I very much welcome our Government's efforts to press for "topping-up" for countries above the debt threshold once they reach completion point, as well as the Government's acceptance of the need to reconsider the methodology, as I have said, to ensure that we obtain genuine debt sustainability once countries have reached that point. As the Secretary of State will be aware, the global economic outlook, falling commodity prices and the HIV/AIDS epidemic will put an especially severe strain on the poorest countries in the next few years. The failure of the recent WTO summit in Cancun, as we discussed in a debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday, will result in yet more barriers to economic growth for the world's poor, particularly in Africa. In that climate, I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that there is an urgent need to cancel even more debt to allow HIPC countries to meet their millennium development goals and build their way out of poverty. Although G7 countries are committed to reducing the bilateral debt—our own Government have made a generous contribution to that reduction—by 65 per cent., the IMF is committed to a reduction of just 29 per cent. and the World Bank of 33 per cent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that both those institutions need to consider a contingency financing facility to assist HIPC countries and work towards a much higher level of debt cancellation?
	In the light of mounting evidence of the failure of IMF-World Bank economic policies to alleviate poverty, particularly in Africa, does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be an immediate explicit commitment to ensure that the provision of both debt relief and new loans from the World Bank and the IMF is not made conditional on privatisation, deregulation or trade liberalisation? Finally, I hope that he agrees that it is now time to give poorer countries much greater control over their own economic policy and allow them to pursue their own routes to development.

John Barrett: There is a problem with the title of this debate, as the problem with "strategies" is that what is often required is not more of them, but a single one. In the field of development, especially in respect of Africa, a huge number of individuals, groups, organisations, non-governmental organisations, Governments and international organisations are making significant contributions to deal with the many issues of which we are all aware. The way forward is to develop a strategy to maximise the effectiveness of that effort and to reduce duplication and waste. That should include a listening strategy, because the experts on poverty are the poor. One might supply water to help a village, but when too many wells are being sunk by different groups without an overall strategy, the water table can drop, leaving no water for anyone. That simple lesson shows why, while acting with the best of intentions, we can be on the road to hell.
	I shall not raise the following issues in any particular order, and this is not a case of discussing Africa at the expense of Iraq. There are a number of issues and they are complex and interlinked. They include poverty, hunger and food production, which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned. Obesity is a problem here in the west while people are starving in Africa, which shows that a worldwide food strategy is required. Health has been mentioned, and we must consider AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and polio, which I shall mention later. Trade is another key factor in this complicated and difficult jigsaw. New alliances have been formed after Cancun. Following relatively disastrous discussions, I hope that this can be the start of a new era in which those new alliances can work together to put their issues at the top of the agenda.
	Basic things that we do every day, such as turning on the tap, are major everyday problems throughout much of Africa. Conflict, whether in Sudan, Ethiopia or elsewhere, has been mentioned. The debt process and the position on heavily indebted poor countries were well covered by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). Other issues include religious divides between Christians and Muslims, the matter of orphans, which has been mentioned, security and terrorism, corruption in a number of countries, including Malawi and Nigeria, wealth distribution, resources and natural mineral resources. Some countries have ongoing problems of the sort that we know a lot about with regard to Ethiopia, as well as Zimbabwe, which has also been mentioned.
	Those are some of the issues that hon. Members will wish to deal with, and I shall try to avoid those that have already been raised and well covered. In the past few months, we have had several debates, mostly in Westminster Hall, about specific African countries, including Ethiopia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and, of course, Zimbabwe. All those discussions have served to educate and advance the debate and to put before Ministers the detailed issues that need to be addressed in each of those countries. I hope that this debate will serve the same purpose. At a time when the world's attention is understandably focused on Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, such debates allow us to return to the part of the globe that the Prime Minister—the hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned this comment—has described as a scar on the conscience of the world. He also said that we could heal that scar or it could become deeper and angrier.
	I do not question the integrity of those in the Chamber and a number of the groups and organisations that we deal with. I am sure that people are working towards the same goal—improving the lot of many people in Africa with whom we would fear to exchange positions. As the Minister and the hon. Member for Meriden have mentioned, Africa has great problems and needs. Of course, progress has been made in some areas, and it is important to recognise that that is the case. Nevertheless, from the troubled peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea to the food requirements of Angola, the HIV problems of Zimbabwe and Botswana and ongoing problems in Liberia, there is a lot to be done, and I appreciate that there are many more issues to discuss than we can possibly mention this afternoon.
	The Government must be given credit for the money that they have given and the role that they have played in trying to improve the lives of people in Africa. The Department for International Development is widely recognised as having taken a leading role in international development in the region, and the simple existence of a Department focused on development has allowed greater priority to be placed on these issues. I shall not forget the first-hand stories that I have heard about how DFID's interventions have changed lives—many from people who otherwise might not be alive today.
	At the same time, though, increasing performance leads to increasing expectations. That is no bad thing: we should constantly aim for better performance, greater results and higher goals. Internationally, many of those targets have already been set through the millennium development goals, several of which have deadlines that are only 10 or 12 years away. It goes without saying that those targets are very challenging, especially in Africa. Figures from the World Bank show the enormous differences between African nations and developing countries in other parts of the world. In terms of progress towards the millennium development goals, for example, only 13 per cent. of countries in sub-Saharan Africa are expected to meet the goal of halting and reversing the spread of HIV-AIDS, compared with 63 per cent. of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. On child mortality, only 18 per cent. of sub-Saharan African countries are expected to meet the goal of reducing the child mortality rate by two thirds, compared with 76 per cent. of countries in south Asia. On perhaps the most important indicator of all—reducing poverty and cutting by half the numbers living on less than a dollar a day—Africa is the only region that is projected by the World Bank's sustained growth forecasts not to meet that goal. It is clear from those statistics that Africa, more than any other region of the world, remains the greatest challenge to the international community.
	So where do we go from here? What can we do to try to turn the situation around? Of course, overseas aid remains one of the most straightforward instruments for achieving change. During our inquiry into financing for development, the Select Committee on International Development was informed by the African Development Bank that an extra $20 billion to $25 billion would be needed every year to enable those African countries that can use aid effectively to meet the millennium development goals. Indeed, the United Nations Development Programme and UNICEF predict that development targets will not be met in Africa unless those additional substantial resources are provided.
	As I said, the Government have a good record on overseas aid, but the Secretary of State will expect to hear me say that there is still room for improvement. I accept that increasing UK development aid to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. would involve a substantial increase in spending, but I want to pursue this point: if he cannot, for whatever reason, increase our aid to that 0.7 per cent. figure, will he at least set a timetable for reaching it, as called for by non-governmental organisations? In response to a parliamentary question, I was told that such matters extending beyond 2006 are matters for future Parliaments and future Governments. That is a cop-out. I cannot understand why the Government can set a 10-year transport target, but not targets for international aid: it just does not make sense.
	Of course, it is not just about the volume or the quantity of aid, but about using it efficiently and effectively for the greatest impact. That is why the European Union can come in for some strong criticism, because, although about 70 per cent. of UK aid is given to low-income countries such as those in Africa, only 40 per cent. of the aid that is distributed by the EU is poverty-focused. Worse still, over the past 10 years the percentage of EU aid given to the lowest-income countries has decreased from 70 per cent. Half our overseas aid is distributed by the EU, and the Secretary of State clearly has a role to play in improving those figures. The EU spends an enormous amount of money on our behalf—money that could undoubtedly be used a lot better. Every step should be taken to improve the efficiency of that aid so that countries and people in Africa can benefit.
	But aid alone will not be enough to help Africa and its people out of poverty. One of the greatest gifts that we can give to the region is to allow Africa and its people the necessary tools to help themselves. Last week in Westminster Hall, we had a useful debate on the International Development Committee's report on issues from Cancun. I do not want to rehearse those arguments, but it is clear that reform of international trade rules would massively benefit Africa's development. The oft-repeated statistic is that if Africa increased its exports by just 1 per cent., it would generate five times what the region receives in aid. That should continually remind us of the prizes that are there to be won if we have the perseverance to fight for them.
	As was said during last week's debate, Cancun was a major setback in the campaign for fairer trade rules, but the determination and momentum for change remain. Africa as a region would be one of the greatest beneficiaries of such a change. When I visited Ethiopia—a country in the stranglehold of the international coffee crisis—with Oxfam this year, I was struck by the real potential that exists there, if only the rules of the international stage were such that it could play its proper part.
	The issue of AIDS is important, but reforming trade rules, tackling the billions of pounds of domestic support that African nations simply cannot match, stopping the dumping that prices African farmers out of their own markets, and ending the tariffs and quotas that stop African exports would all make an enormous contribution to ending the poverty and to improving the economic development of the region. I appreciate that getting those reforms is not solely in the hands of the Secretary of State or the UK Government, but they have an important role to play as the champion of the poor, standing up for countries that, for whatever reason, cannot help themselves. We should have fair trade, not just free trade.
	One of the greatest challenges facing Africa is the spread of HIV and AIDS. Thirty million people are now infected in sub-Saharan Africa, with a new infection occurring every nine seconds. Someone dies every 13 seconds. From the moment the Secretary of State opened this debate to the moment that you close our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, an estimated 1,200 people will have contracted HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, and 830 people will have died. The HIV prevalence rate in some countries now exceeds 30 per cent., with almost 40 per cent. of the people in Botswana infected. One of the tragic aspects of this is that the relatively speedy development of Botswana could be linked to the increasing spread of HIV, through increased affluence, mobility and access to alcohol, and the knock-on effects that those factors can have.
	The AIDS virus is now ripping apart the society of many African countries, leaving millions of orphans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has mentioned. Agricultural knowledge is simply not being passed on from parent to child, and when it is, the children are too young, and their parents too sick, to work the land. HIV is far from being a poor man's illness. Teachers, nurses and other professionals are also dying, damaging the few already fragile mechanisms in place for basic health care and education. It is a real problem to have discussions with a group of key decision makers whose priority is to think in the long term, if those people might not be there in the long term. Christian Aid has predicted that if more is not done, 15 million people will die of HIV by 2007. Many of those deaths can be prevented, however.
	The recent agreement on the reform of trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights by the US, India, South Africa and others is a major step forward in terms of providing medicines in Africa, but drug availability is not the answer in itself. More must be done to build the infrastructure and delivery mechanisms there, so that more people can be given better treatment. More education is required, along with the very best of preventive health care, to teach people about HIV and its dangers.
	Better use can surely be made of the global health fund. I am well aware of the extra resources that the Government have pledged towards the fund, but it is still one of the greatest underused mechanisms for the co-ordination and execution of our war against this disease. I would also praise the work of the company Diageo for the work that it has done in providing free antiretroviral drugs to those in its work force who require it. That has set a valuable example for other companies to follow.
	While HIV and AIDS kill during war and peacetime, conflict between nations only adds to the barriers to poverty reduction and economic development. When more money is spent on guns than schoolbooks, and when there are more soldiers than doctors, we can never hope to achieve our goals in Africa. That is why conflict prevention and conflict resolution are so important. The recent progress made in Sudan, with the signing of a security framework, is a major step forward. The news yesterday that United Nations peacekeepers are to fly back to Liberia following evidence of renewed fighting only confirms that work remains to be done there.
	In Somalia, 10 years after the failed US intervention, there remains no central Government in a country of warring factions that is, as the US ambassador warned, a potential seedbed for terrorism. In Ethiopia and Eritrea, all steps must be taken to encourage the respective authorities to sign up to the proposed new border to avoid further conflict. Without stability, we will never be able to attract the investment—especially private investment—that Africa desperately needs. Without good governance, in which the international community has its part to play, there will be little confidence in financing projects. For Africa, the New Partnership for Africa's Development will play an important part in that. We must encourage African nations to police each other effectively; at the same time, we must be there as a friend to the region to offer assistance if and when it is required.
	One of the most critical aspects of development is not only looking to the future, but learning from the past, as mistakes are not pointless if lessons really are learned. During the food crisis that threatened southern Africa last year, the early warning systems failed. We must learn from what happened—the detail of how the UK and other donor nations responded has been debated at great length in the House—but, as the hon. Member for Meriden pointed out, there is clear evidence coming forward of warnings being given, especially by those working on the ground, that we are facing other potential crises in southern and eastern Africa.
	I have also received information suggesting that countries such as Lesotho, which suffered badly last year, are also facing food shortages because of adverse weather. I note that the simple problem with shipping in Angola recently had a major impact on food aid availability and distribution.
	Those events present us with short-term and long-term challenges. Naturally, in the short term the UK Government have a responsibility to respond to the crisis that is developing, assisting in the provision of food and water aid while encouraging others to follow suit. However, in the long term we must ensure that the potential for such crises occurring in the first place is diminished. We cannot go through the same sequence of events every year, where erratic rainfall leads to a poor harvest, which leads to a food crisis.
	With global warming and more unpredictable weather conditions, the frequency of those external shocks will surely increase. We have to ensure that the damage that they can inflict is minimised, although I appreciate that that is not easy to achieve. However, diversification of agriculture, or even reducing the dependence on agriculture, as well as use of drought-resistant crops and ensuring that better infrastructure is in place can all be carried forward.
	As I said at the beginning of my contribution, the Government are to be commended for the action that they have taken in Africa—undoubtedly, they have played one of the leading roles—but further action can be taken and further progress made. Africa's development should concern us all. We should not tolerate such poverty. We would not tolerate it in our own country and we must not tolerate it in Africa either. We must never forget that Africa will not make it alone.

Tony Colman: I think I am the first inner-London Member of Parliament to contribute to the debate. May I do so especially by saying that the issue of African development arises on the doorsteps of Putney because people are concerned as to what is going wrong? However, I speak not in particular for the trade justice groups and the Churches, as Putney is the location of the headquarters of Voluntary Service Overseas, which I commend to the House.
	I also have in my constituency the world centre of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, which has not only just opened the largest mosque in Europe, but which finances the largest non-governmental organisation, Humanity First. It provides schools and health care throughout Africa. Vegpro, a large vegetable processing company that imports from east and central Africa, is also based in my constituency, as is Nando's retail chain, whose world headquarters are in Putney and in South Africa.
	It is perhaps as important and intriguing to note that there are some 25,000 South Africans in Putney. Clearly, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House came here as an asylum seeker—a refugee—in the 1970s, others followed. I am pleased to pay tribute to the work being done by the Reverend Stephen Melhuish at, to pick out one church, St. Michael's in Southfields, which has some 500 South African members and is twinned with a number of parishes in South Africa. It works with those parishes on issues to do with HIV/AIDS, and in particular works with HIV/AIDS orphans.
	This issue very much affects me at my surgeries and on the doorsteps of Putney, and I want to take a different approach to it from others who spoke before me. I do not mean that they are wrong; I simply think that an alternative voice needs to be put forward.
	I want to talk about trade, taxation, education and health care.
	I do not want to repeat what was said in Thursday's excellent Westminster Hall debate, but I want to refer to the 2002 African trade report produced by the African Export-Import bank, based in Egypt. It demonstrates that Africa may not be the basket case that many consider it to be. It is in fact a vibrant continent with many great successes and enormous potential, some of which has already been fulfilled. In 2002 it achieved a trade surplus of US$4.2 billion—a fall from the 2001 figure of US$5.59 billion, but that is partly due to the growth in imports. As the Secretary of State said, there was a 3.5 per cent. increase in trade in 2002, as against a 1 per cent. contraction in 2001.
	According to this reference book—apparently the only one available from African sources—Africa's share of world trade in 2002 was 1.93 per cent. That was a slight increase on the previous year's figure; of course, world trade increased. The value of intra-African trade grew by 6 per cent. during that year. It is interesting to see the list of countries that are rapidly increasing the percentages of their total trade that represent trade with the rest of Africa. Uganda's percentage is 43, Niger's 39, Mali's 38, Burkina Faso's 37 and Mozambique's 36. One important subject that we did not discuss on Thursday is the World Bank figures, which show that if Africa traded more with Africa across state boundaries there would be a significant improvement, and greater employment possibilities. I commend the work of COMESA, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, based in Lusaka, and that of SADC—the Southern African Development Community—which I think is based in Gabarone. I am glad that those bodies are working jointly, and that there is potential for an Africa-wide free trade area.
	Let me now say something about tax. The Secretary of State said that he had attended the United Nations General Assembly special session on finance for development—last week, I think. Perhaps in the winding-up speech we could hear a comment on the suggestion by Jose Antonio Ocampo, the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, that the UN should be the forum for global dialogue on tax matters. As trade increased and the multinationals became increasingly involved, the UN should consider the issues involved—not necessarily tariff issues, which are a matter for the World Trade Organisation, but the taxing of exports and the corporation tax profits of companies trading in Africa.
	It is important for there to be a UN approach rather than, as it were, a race to the bottom. Many people have criticised the UN global compact: the state voices seem to have been muted, and the multinationals are making the running. Perhaps, given his attendance at UNGASS, the Secretary of State will say something about that.

Martin Smyth: How far does the international body seek to influence, for example, Chad, which is one of the poorest countries? Will any of the oil that is being produced get back to Chad, so that it can build up its own economic prosperity?

Tony Colman: The World Bank, through the International Finance Corporation, has laid down strict rules—for the first time, I believe—whereby the taxes paid by the oil companies must be spent on such things as education and health. I understand that that is being overseen by the World Bank. I read in the newspapers that there was something of a slip-up in the first few days, and that the purchasing of some arms was allowed. But the overall view is that this is the way forward to ensure that, if a new form of finance is available, the first call must be on health and education. However, it is for each sovereign African state to take its own decisions. As many of our International Development Committee reports have said, the important thing is for each country to have the policy space to take its own decisions on trade, tax, health care and education.
	Returning to tax, I think it important that, as Members who are interested in international development, we do not allow the wealthy in developing countries to get off the hook. I am saddened by the fact that very little tax is paid by the wealthy in many African countries. According to any interpretation of policy space, taxation policy and how to raise taxes should be matters on which the country in question decides, although it may wish to seek outside advice. I was interested to meet a constituent of mine who is working for Crown Agents, advising on public accounting standards and taxation in Mozambique. He asked, "Are you surprised that I consider this an important area?" I said, "No—it is important to build a local tax base." Unless people feel that they have a stake in the schools and clinics that they have contributed to—the sums contributed from their pockets may be small, but they constitute a large proportion of their income—they will not regard such facilities as their own. In Pakistan, there is a virtual resurgence of local health care and education, because local government legislation allows local councils to levy local taxes. Because taxes are levied locally, local constituents make sure that the teachers and nurses are there. That has not happened before.
	On schooling, everyone in this House would support the Dakar declaration of 2000, which ensures that schooling is carried through. My concern is that in doing so, we make sure that account is taken of what is happening on the ground. There is an element of private education in virtually every African country, and in that regard an interesting exchange of letters between Professor James Tooley and Oxfam's Kevin Watkins took place in today's Financial Times. The latter said that he is not against the provision of private education, but he also said that the main provision should be through the state. As a Labour MP, I strongly support that view.
	We should however consider private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships, which the Department for International Development has yet to do, as an alternative way forward. We are building schools all over Britain on the basis of PFI and PPP; could similar arrangements be made available if the country concerned wished to have them? The same is true of health care. We were all galvanised into action at the Labour party conference when the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about the international financing facility's providing a health service for Africa. It is important to point out that hospitals all over Africa are empty and in decline because they have been built in the wrong places, and the doctors and nurses cannot be afforded. There is a need to ensure wrap-around health care. I ask whether there is a way forward by adapting for Africa the public-private partnerships that are getting hospitals built here. That could be done within a 30 or 25-year time frame, which would ensure that doctors and nurses got paid and that the hospitals were of a suitable quality for local people.
	I pay tribute to AAR Health Services, which is chaired by Lord Enniskillen. It is the main private health provider in east Africa. Its founder was Bengt Beckman, whom I have met. His widow, Mrs. Beckman, took me to see the clinics—they are partly financed by the Department for International Development—around Nairobi. There were four clinics there, a further two in Tanzania and one will soon open in Kampala. This is an attempt to provide good quality health care on an affordable basis for the poorest people in east Africa. It is an interesting initiative and I praise DFID for working on this public-private partnership, albeit one that has not seen much light of day.
	To conclude, it is not just a matter of trade: it is also a matter of aid. When I used to meet the noble Lord Bauer, who has since died, back in the 1960s, I used to fight him continually—almost physically—on his view that aid would corrupt the African continent and lead to 30 or 40 years of slow development. In his view, trade was the only way forward. I now believe that he was half right, but that I was half right, too. We need both. Africa needs the policy space to decide how best to go forward, but the idea in my speech should be taken into account. Progress can be made in the form of a partnership and through properly taxing business, but that will not deliver the whole answer for health care and education—only part of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, I have observed that many hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye, so unless contributions are reasonably short, many of them will be disappointed.

Tony Baldry: There are times when I think that the divisions in the Chamber are pretty stupid, because it is clear that on a subject such as this most of us are agreed. I have listened to the speeches of the Secretary of State, of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), and I suspect that we are all in agreement. I see in their place six hon. Members who serve on the International Development Committee. So far, our Committee has produced about 12 reports during this Parliament, which must amount to about 1,000 recommendations, all of which have been unanimous. There are so many issues on which we all agree that we sometimes need to think about how the House could express its collective view more effectively.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State about the New Partnership for Africa's Development. We in the House are all passionate supporters of that new partnership, but it is a deal and a two-way deal, and many feel uncomfortable about countries such as Zimbabwe, Liberia and others. We are all Commonwealth parliamentarians in the House—all members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—but what has been happening in Zimbabwe is wholly unacceptable.
	It is frustrating for all of us that President Mbeki of South Africa and others have not been more effective on that issue. He and I were students together at Sussex university. In fact, there are more Sussex university graduates in the South African Parliament than in the House, although there is quite a number in both. South Africa has tried the soft approach to Zimbabwe and it has not worked. To be honest, we should express our concern that more needs to be said about Zimbabwe. It is undergoing complete collapse, with huge rates of inflation that we can barely understand and many newspapers being closed down. That is wholly unacceptable.
	On Sierra Leone, I am at a loss to understand the position of President Obasanjo of Nigeria over Charles Taylor. I understand that, from a realpolitik view, it was sensible to get Taylor out of Liberia, but he has been indicted by a UN war crimes tribunal. Indeed, we did much to set up that tribunal, and the deputy prosecutor in Sierra Leone is a United Kingdom Queen's Counsel. It was set up because the United States and United Kingdom Governments were concerned that al-Qaeda had been financed through blood diamonds from Sierra Leone.
	One of the reasons for the UN treaty with Sierra Leone was the anticipation that sufficient prima facie evidence would be found to indict Charles Taylor for war crimes. He and his forces had the greatest responsibility for war crimes in Sierra Leone. We should remember that the war crimes in Sierra Leone involved people being asked whether they wanted to be left handed or right handed and a machete being taken to the other hand or arm. They were serious crimes, but Charles Taylor has been given political asylum in Nigeria. I genuinely do not understand that.
	The House—not just the Government—needs to make it clear to our parliamentary colleagues in Nigeria and South Africa that we will do our bit in terms of development aid for Africa, but we expect them to do their bit in terms of governance. We are not asking a huge amount. All we are asking them to do is to exercise some influence on parliamentary colleagues in Nigeria and Zimbabwe and elsewhere. We are entitled to ask that collectively, as the House of Commons, and to look to the Government to say to President Mbeki and President Obasanjo that we expect them to do their bit.
	We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall last week on targets, so I shall say only that the litmus test for the Doha development round will be cotton. The Under-Secretary will have taken that on board and we will see what we manage to achieve.
	Nor shall I say much about conflict, because we will have a debate on Thursday on the Quadripartite Committee's reports, which will give us the opportunity to talk about arms exports. I hope that one of the millennium development goals will be to reduce substantially the number of children in Africa running around with AK47s. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and others have worked hard on such issues as they affect the great lakes area. One of the real tragedies of northern Uganda and Sierra Leone has been the number of young people involved in perpetrating the conflict.

Oona King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to mention the golden opportunity facing the great lakes region at present. Very positive things are happening in Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and this is a wonderful opportunity for the House to show that we will support their transition to democracy along the lines of good governance, and how they can be full partners in NEPAD.

Tony Baldry: Everyone in the House would rejoice if we could achieve that, as they would if we could make advances in Sudan—it looks as if that might happen—and in Somalia, although that may be more difficult. That would be fantastic news, but there are far too many small arms swilling around in Africa. I hope that we can debate that issue on Thursday.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill was right to remind us, with her long list of important statistics, that we have not yet achieved as much as many of us hoped we would on the HIPC programme and debt relief. We must not forget the issue. The tendency is to remember the Jubilee debt relief campaign and think that we have ticked that box, but work remains to be done.
	I want to raise two matters with the Secretary of State. First, DFID's policy for many years has been about sustainable livelihoods. There is a real concern in Africa that sustainable livelihoods have tended to become subsistence livelihoods. A friend of mine is a parliamentarian in one of the west African states, and he said that Africa's was a "chickenfeed" economy.
	Last year, the Select Committee on International Development reported on the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa. Many of our conclusions concentrated on ways of enhancing agriculture in Africa. I appreciate that these things go through cycles, and that concern about agriculture extension may look a bit passé, but we must enhance agricultural production in Africa, and enterprise. Understandably, much of DFID's work is devoted to health, education and good governance, but where are the new jobs to come from? Unemployment in the townships outside Johannesburg or Pretoria is about 60 or 70 per cent. How is that sustainable? How are we going to create new enterprise and new jobs in Africa, and attract foreign direct investment?
	Secondly, the House displays enormous unity when it comes to wanting to enhance the position in Africa, but some uncomfortable truths remain. For many, the litmus test of whether we can address those truths is whether we can confront some of our parliamentary colleagues—in Zimbabwe, Liberia, Sierra Leone and some other countries—and tell them that what they are doing is unacceptable.
	If we cannot do that, and be honest in our relationship with Africa, there is a real danger that we will continue merely to make great, Panglossian speeches about HIV/AIDS and other matters that require real political leadership. We have a shared responsibility to say that the standards of behaviour acceptable in Africa must be as high as those that are expected elsewhere in the world. We will do our bit—and more than our bit—with NEPAD and other initiatives, but the compact must be mutual. Others must do their bit in the deal: if they do not, Africa will always be going backwards; if they do, Africa might be able to move forwards.

Hugh Bayley: I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the need for political leadership in Africa, but we also have to provide technical assistance. People can lead effectively only when they know where they are going.
	I want to speak about HIV/AIDS in Africa. The Department has funded a collaboration between researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in London, at Johns Hopkins university in the US, and at Kintampo in Ghana. The research has identified an extremely cheap treatment that involves giving vitamin A supplements to children from birth to five years of age. The treatment dramatically reduces infection rates for tuberculosis, malaria and even mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS.
	That work has been done in Africa, in collaboration with—and funded by—our Government. We need to provide that sort of technical information and assistance, to enable their leaders to lead. The treatment has been shown to be effective, and the hon. Member for Banbury is right to say that we should expect our Government to provide funding to roll it out across the continent—and that we should expect leaders in Africa to show that vitamin A is an important part of Africa's defence against opportunist infections.
	Before we get too locked into gloom and doom about the enormous challenges faced by Africa, we should note that parts of Africa are developing and moving closer to the millennium goals. Between 1990 and 2000, according to the latest human development report from the United Nations Development Programme, the percentage of children completing five years of primary education in Namibia increased from 62 per cent. to 92 per cent. Over the same period, infant mortality in Uganda fell from 100 deaths per thousand live births to 79 deaths per thousand live births. In Ghana, the number of under-nourished adults and children fell from 35 per cent. to 12 per cent. of the population. With political leadership and development assistance, real progress can be made.
	In many parts of the continent, however, things are moving backwards. Development is being undermined by bad governance, conflict, environmental degradation and the three great health pandemics of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. As has already been pointed out, 10 per cent. of the world's population live in Africa, but 70 per cent. of those who are HIV-positive live in that continent. AIDS has surpassed malaria as the most common cause of death in Africa and kills many, many more Africans each year than all the conflicts in that conflict-riven continent. By 2005, AIDS will kill more Africans than all other causes of death put together.
	Life expectancy has fallen dramatically in many African countries. In Zimbabwe, average life expectancy has fallen from 59 to 43 years; in Botswana, it has fallen from 62 to 36 years. The population of South Africa—a developing country—is falling in absolute terms. It is almost unbelievable, but the population is being reduced due to the AIDS death toll. However, in other parts of Africa, such as Madagascar or Senegal, life expectancy is rising, because the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is much lower.
	It is difficult to understand the scale of the crisis. In Botswana, for example, 39 per cent. of adults are HIV-positive. The figure is 34 per cent. in Zimbabwe, 20 per cent. in South Africa and 15 per cent. in both Malawi and Kenya. That means that 40 per cent. of the adults in Botswana will die over the next few years; one in three Zimbabwean adults with children will die, and one in five South Africans will die.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so rightly pointed out, our continent has not faced a health catastrophe of that kind since the black death, which halved the population of our country. It took 400 years for our population to recover. That is a measure of the economic consequence of such a large-scale health crisis.
	There is another parallel that we should use—hard though it is. About 20 million Africans have already died from AIDS. UNAIDS estimates that another 55 million could die by 2020. From 1500 until the end of the 19th century, the slave trade transported about 18 million Africans out of the continent and it probably killed about 50 million Africans, many of whom died before they left the coasts of Africa. However, the economic impact of the AIDS pandemic could be as great or greater than that of the slave trade, even though that trade may have been the reason that Africa fell behind other developing regions of the world.
	The epidemic has social, political, economic and security implications. Several hon. Members have referred to the numbers of AIDS orphans. I have read that there are already 11 million AIDS orphans in Africa. Even if we could wave a magic wand to stop HIV infection instantly and completely, the number of orphans would continue to rise as those who are already infected die.
	In 1995, there were virtually no AIDS orphans in South Africa. This year, there are about 500,000. By 2006, the number is likely to rise to 1 million; by 2008, to 1.5 million; and, by 2010, to something like 2 million children. If our children's services in the United Kingdom had to cope with that number of children, they would be utterly overwhelmed, and South Africa does not start with state children's services of the type that we have in this country.
	By the time that parents die from AIDS, their families will already be in dire straits. A five-year retrospective study of AIDS-affected families in Zambia found that the average monthly disposable income for families with AIDS fell by 80 per cent. compared with non-infected families. So when they are orphaned the children are already malnourished and, more likely than not, they are already out of school and over-worked caring for siblings and trying to till the land to create an income for the family. The family are likely to have sold their possessions. When the parents die, their children often lose their homes as well.
	When some AIDS specialists spoke to the all-party Africa group about AIDS in Africa recently, one of the researchers told us about meeting three children walking along a road in South Africa 20 miles from town. All three were stark naked and under the age of 10. When he talked to them, they said that their second parent had died that morning, but they had heard that their mother had a sister whom they had never met living in the town, and they were walking to town to try to find someone to care for them.
	The social and economic consequences are enormous. In our report on the famine in southern Africa, the International Development Committee identified the HIV epidemic as a very important component of the crisis. We also identified that, first, the initial defence against HIV is food. Secondly, food shortages arise to a great extent because of the inability of so many families weakened by HIV to till the land and grow food. So technical work needs to be done in this country and in Africa, supported by our money, to find new crops that need less weeding, less watering and shallower ploughing. We can make a real contribution, so that the leadership in Africa can deliver some results.
	We clearly saw the impact caused by the loss of specialists—the relatively few nurses and teachers and the very few economists and trade negotiators in developing countries. In a meeting with the Malawian agriculture department, we sat round a table with a dozen top officials. I forget exactly how many of them were HIV-positive—we were told after the meeting—but I think that it was four or five. In other words, a third of the top officials of the department of agriculture would be taken away from the Malawian Government, and they have no way to replace them.
	The situation is absolutely dreadful, but it is not so dreadful that nothing can be done about it. The Secretary of State mentioned the positive policies that the Ugandan Government have pursued to combat problems there.

Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point and I agree with everything that he has said. Does he agree that the House should also pay tribute to those grandparents and others who are seeking to help those orphaned children and to those involved in education who are seeking to change the thought processes of political leaders and others in Africa so that they are more positive in dealing with the problem?

Hugh Bayley: I am conscious that I must make progress, but I wish to say that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The number of orphans will rise dramatically over the next 10 or 15 years, so we must use that time to find ways to provide care and support through the extended family, the state and the education system for children who lose their parents; otherwise, some of those countries will become failed states and descend into anarchy, with an uneducated population who are unable to contribute to the development of their country.

Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do as he suggests on education, we will start to create a win-win situation? One of the issues at the root of HIV/AIDS and poverty is the poor access of all children, particularly girls, to primary and secondary education. Does he therefore agree that almost nothing represents better value for money when dealing with some of issues he has identified than an emphasis on education?

Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The message is that this crisis is so severe that we can only tackle it by mainstreaming AIDS policy in every area of our development assistance policy, and by Governments in Africa mainstreaming it in every area of their policy. If that does not happen, we will not have a significant enough effect on reducing infection, on mitigating the effects of the disease on the victims or their orphans, or on treating the disease. AIDS policy therefore needs to become part of mainstream development strategies.
	One area where I saw that happening was in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To declare an interest, as a member of the all-party great lakes region group, I visited the country three weeks ago, funded by the Congolese Government. There, we met members of MONUC, the UN mission, whose soldiers provide security so that the fragile interim administration can maintain peace and work towards elections in 20 months' time. MONUC requires all soldiers who join its mission, from any country, to undergo an AIDS training programme before they arrive. They must come with AIDS public health information packs and AIDS treatment and testing packs, and must carry out at least one project with the community and the country to deal with the AIDS crisis. AIDS action therefore needs to be woven into every part of its work, and that must also apply to every part of the Department for International Development's operations, whether in health, education or rural development.
	MONUC has a responsibility for disarming the irregular forces—the so-called negative forces—in the eastern Congo and for aiding their repatriation to their countries of origin, Uganda and Rwanda. It finds it extremely difficult to persuade people to give up arms because it can provide no incentive for doing so. In Sierra Leone, the UN could provide cash in return for weapons, and it would like to be in a position to do the same in the DRC. I hope that our Department will consider that option. Perhaps it should not offer cash but initiate a "work for weapons" programme to build roads, as one of the difficulties facing the UN is that there are no roads to get those disarmed soldiers out of the country. We might therefore be able to create a win-win situation.
	The interim administration is a huge step forward for the DRC after six years of civil war. It is, however, extremely fragile. If it achieves the task of running a free and fair election in 20 months' time it will be the first time that the country has held such an election for more than 40 years, and I hope that the UK will look at how to support the institution-building process and the election preparations so that that election can go forward safely.
	The UK has provided a lot of money for AIDS. As the Secretary of State said, the budget when we came into office in 1997 was £38 million a year and it was £270 million last year. However, when I examined the policy information marker system to find out where the money went, I noticed that £54 million went to Africa last year, while £80 million went to Asia and £163 million was provided through non-regional-specific allocations. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine the allocation of resources for Africa, which is where 70 per cent. of the HIV-positive population lives, relative to other parts of the world. I am suggesting not that he takes away money from other parts of the world but that he ensures that Africa receives sufficient resources.

Alistair Burt: I am delighted to follow a succession of speeches by members of the Select Committee on International Development, each of whom is more distinguished than I. Their insights gave an indication of why it is such a pleasure to serve on that Committee. I noted that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who has just left the Chamber, said that he had been galvanised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech at the party conference in Bournemouth. I am the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the leader of the Conservative party for the next 48 hours, so hon. Members might like to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have developed a sixth sense for comments that might be a veiled attack on a leader. However, he can be reassured that his comments will remain confidential between us.
	I also beg the House's forgiveness. I have the honour of being the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the headquarters of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds resides. I am sponsoring a reception for the RSPB and it would like me to introduce a Minister at half-past six, so I would be most grateful if I could be excused from the winding-up speeches.
	It is easy during such debates to be either too wide ranging or to create the impression of being overwhelmed by the multiplicity of issues that affect African development and stand in the way of Africa's progress. Africa will triumph and we should not deny for a moment the extraordinary hope and aspirations of its people that will break through. I would like to concentrate on one or two narrower aspects of development issues—I do not wish to suggest that I am neglecting other things about which hon. Members have spoken—because otherwise where would I start? Should one start by talking about trade and justice or AIDS, as the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) did so movingly and passionately, if I may say so? I had the honour of being in the audience when Nelson Mandela spoke to the International Red Cross in London in July. Among other things, he said:
	"AIDS represents a tragedy of unprecedented proportion . . . claiming",
	in Africa,
	"more lives that the sum total of all wars, famines and floods and the ravages of such deadly diseases as malaria."
	The hon. Gentleman was not wrong to devote his speech to the problem of HIV/AIDS.
	We cannot forget the age-old problems of famine, conflict and debt, but I want to direct my attention away from such matters and reflect a little, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), on the importance of governance to the future of Africa and the role that that must play in its future development. My interest in Africa, and especially South Africa, is coupled with that of two other hon. Members—the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). They are two Christian friends with whom I have shared many journeys to that country. Our visits and interest date back to 1986 when we visited South Africa in the teeth of the apartheid regime and our visits have continued up until Whitsuntide this year when the three of us made what was our fifth or sixth visit—either singly or together—since that time. We have seen the extraordinary changes that have taken place in South Africa and have been privileged to share contacts with people in government and business, and churches and township communities. The hand of friendship has been extended to us by all races in all parts of the country. The three of us are touched by South Africa and our friendship is marked and defined by our experiences there. We shall always support its people.
	I believe that the development of Africa will increasingly become of mainstream political importance for people in the UK and Europe. European history is bound up with Africa and we retain the connections of the centuries that neither time nor contemporary politics can change or deny in any way. We are as much a part of Africa's future as it was of our past.
	It is argued that Africa will become of greater importance to us in the future. The nature of global politics is changing and Africa's importance will be fully realised in due course, for in the long term events are moving in a direction that is changing the geopolitical balance. Two examples illustrate that. First, we are beginning to recognise that a world of major power blocs put together is breaking down. Blocs based on former security issues or older established trading patterns are no longer as rigid or certain as they were. The old context of security and ideological issues that defined European, western and world politics for so long is becoming redundant. Terrorism is taking some of the place of conventional warfare. Trade and development is arising as the longer term alternative to colonialism. Secondly, the new politics of the world will be based on different matters and issues than those of the past. Sustainable development, environmental concern, trade justice, migration and world population issues are intimately bound up with developing nations and have significant economic consequences for the rest of the world. Africa is the eloquent symbol of the crossroads at a moment of history.
	Hon. Members are aware that it is not a question of whether Africa will arise from its difficulties alone or by way of outside assistance. It is not going to be that sort of world. We all have a vested interest in working with each other to overcome common problems. There will be two crucial aspects to that. One will concern the way in which the outside world works in harmony with African nations. Concordats, such as NEPAD or millennium development goals, will be the key to that. Of growing importance, however, will be the changing nature of the demands of developing countries themselves and their growing confidence in advocating them.
	The recent collapse of the World Trade Organisation talks in Cancun was a graphic example of that. I have my doubts about whether the collapse is the good news it was celebrated to be at the time. The euphoria that greets such a result is often assessed differently in the cold light of the following weeks, but the new-found expression of confidence among developing nations must be recognised and applauded. If such a demonstration of the change in the world order is to be of lasting significance, however, those countries that are assuming a greater and more powerful role on the world stage must have the political infrastructure to sustain such a position. That brings me back to South Africa.
	Over the years, my hon. Friends and I have witnessed the remarkable transfer of power in that country from the apartheid regime to the new democratic Government. The decade or so since the effective transfer of power provides a reasonable time scale for looking at markers of real development to signal the progress of an emerging democracy. I recognise the Government's extraordinary achievements, but I post a warning that I trust in years to come will prove unnecessary.
	Our recent visit to South Africa included an opportunity to meet Members of Parliament from the African National Congress and a variety of Opposition parties. We spent time with Magosuthu Buthelezi, the Minister for Home Affairs and the leader of the Inkatha Freedom party. We visited the Mpumalanga provincial Parliament and spoke to a wide range of friends and contacts. It is impossible to avoid or ignore the uneasy sense that an already immensely powerful Government are becoming increasingly strong in South Africa. The ANC dominates the national Parliament and is in full control of the vast majority of provincial legislatures as well. In light of the ANC's background, it is entirely understandable that it is puzzled and uncertain of opposition and believes that its future security, and that of its country, is bound up with it being in even greater control than it is now. A BBC press release from the summer entitled "ANC tightens grip on power" describes the process of Members crossing the Floor of the House under a law that allowed them to do that within a time scale without losing their seats. It enabled the ANC to gain new members and alter the balance of power in different legislatures.
	There are other concerns. Helen Suzman, a campaigner for freedom from apartheid and known as a beacon of liberalism and freedom to virtually everyone in the Chamber for a significant part of our political lives, recently wrote of her sadness at feeling marginalized in the new South Africa. The part played by her and others in history is not quite given the prominence it was in 1994 and should continue to receive.
	In September 2003, the Helen Suzman Foundation published an article by a reporter, Sarah Crowe, entitled "Local Media Freedom is Not Set in Stone", which was introduced with the statement:
	"Vigorous white journalists are liable to be accused of racism, while their black confreres risk condemnation for lack of patriotism."
	The article said:
	"Never before has the South African media been so free, so diverse and so large. But ironically there are now probably more self-imposed limitations on the media than in the past.
	Today the media finds itself choking on the sweet air of new freedoms, trapped in a racial purgatory characterised by patriotic praise singing or thinly-veiled bigotry. There is a great need now for a more astute and nuanced response from editors and journalists.
	Under the administration of Thabo Mbeki, it is a truism that if you're black and critical of the government you're either unpatriotic or, worse still, dominated by or thinking like whites, while if you're white and critical you're a racist."

Helen Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is giving an interesting exposition of the potential failings of the ANC in government in South Africa, but does he recognise the great leadership that the ANC has shown in insisting that there is good representation of women at every level of power from the smallest local council to the Parliament, the Cabinet and Ministries? It is the only party in Africa that I know of that has set out to achieve the goal of 33 per cent. representation for women, and it has managed in 10 years to achieve something that we still struggle with in our democracy.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady is entitled to make her point, and it is a perfectly fair one. However, I am not making a point about individual components of the ANC—far from it—and I am not denying the successes of the past 10 years or the years before that. If she will stay with me for a moment, I will get to my point.
	The article that I was quoting goes on to say:
	"Although these divisions may have been latent in the society anyway, they have become manifest under Mbeki. The discord is—to quote Anton Harber, professor at the Caxton School of Journalism at the University of the Witwatersrand—'terribly destructive' for the media."
	The article does not stand alone, and other quotes can be found that express similar concerns.
	I raise this issue because I believe profoundly that democracy constitutes a set of absolute propositions. There can be no allowance, simply because a regime has emerged from an authoritarian past, for breaches of democratic principle. Unless the same rigour is applied worldwide, abuses of democracy and, in consequence, human rights abuses inevitably follow. South Africa must become not only Africa's leader but, perhaps, the dominant force among developing nations throughout the world. The good will associated with its transition is almost unique in our political experience, and that is why our expectations are so huge and important. That is why we care so much about the nation's governance and its pluralism.
	I commend the work of the Department for International Development and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in supporting the projects designed to encourage democratic growth in South Africa. Colleagues may be interested to learn that the foundation has supported 62 projects since 1998. All the major political parties have been involved, and colleagues may like to know that the Liberal Democrats ran a regional workshop for skills in local election campaigning. I suspect that most of us who have been involved in by-elections could probably tell people more about the Liberal Democrats than they themselves could do.
	Labour colleagues ran a very good seminar entitled "Follow-up fund-raising training", so look out grand prix entrepreneurs and people in the media, because you are going to be tapped. With some trepidation, I tell the House that the Conservative party ran a seminar on message development urgency, about which we might also claim to know quite a bit.
	To conclude with a serious point, it is important that those who want a pluralist society to continue in South Africa take the most careful note of current developments to forestall the sort of problem that we have seen on its northern border. I visited Harare in 1986, when there were worries that Zimbabwe might be moving towards greater intolerance and that the removal of guaranteed seats for whites in the Zimbabwean Parliament was the top of a slippery slope. There was also some anxiety about press freedom. However, a blind eye was effectively turned—there were surely all sorts of good reasons for Robert Mugabe's regime taking a little longer to accept the pluralist traditions that were common in other parts of the world. The consequence of the blind eye is the hunger, terrorism and destruction of human rights for many people in Zimbabwe and the cruel loss of the dignity that, ironically, Robert Mugabe had symbolised when he freed his people.
	We are a long way from that in South Africa, but the warnings of South Africans who fear the return of a chill wind of intolerance should be heard and respected. The international community was not a critical friend to Zimbabwe at a time when it most needed it. We must therefore—this point is addressed directly to the hon. Lady—be a critical friend to South Africa now because so much is expected of it. Its people, resources and aspirations are second to none. I described the love that my hon. Friends and I have for South Africa because of our visits there, our friendships and relationships. If it can become a beacon for pluralist democracy in southern African and an unimpeachable model for others, if it is prepared to work with other African nations to solve local tyrannies, the prospects for African development proceeding in a manner that will benefit not only its own people but the world must be strong, and the world itself will be stronger as a result.

Tony Worthington: May I thank the Secretary of State for remaining in the Chamber throughout our debate? Not many people do so— it sends a welcome message to Back Benchers, for which I express appreciation. I hope that such behaviour will help me in future as well.
	In our debate on African development strategies, I wish to raise a single issue—the fact that the discovery of natural resources in Africa has led not to wealth but to poverty for its people. Although there have been enormous riches for a corrupt elite and riches for western companies, that has been at the expense of many people in southern Africa, which is now the poorest part of the world. The amount that we have given in aid is minute compared with the capital taken from Africa by Africans. The Abacha family alone took literally billions out of Nigeria's oil fields.
	I shall focus on oil, but what I shall say applies equally to diamonds, gold and timber. An initiative to tackle the theft of oil wealth could be conducted that would not require money but simply political commitment by the wealthy of the world, including our own country. Other Members have referred to the fact that we are hearing more and more about the robbery of the Congo's riches by the powerful in surrounding countries, with funds then transferred to western companies. The United Nations is about to consider a report on the plundering of resources such as minerals in the Congo, and 18 international companies are to be named which, I hope, will alert us to the consequences of western companies feeding off conflict in developing countries.

Oona King: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the British Government's response to that report, which is out but not yet fully available, will be made public?

Tony Worthington: That is an interesting intervention. I hope that I can manipulate the Minister to act as my ventriloquist's dummy and give my hon. Friend the right answer.
	Countries such as Nigeria discovered oil, then made a dire descent into abject poverty. Angola discovered oil, and used it to fund one side in a horrible war, while the other side used diamonds. It should be central to our development strategy in Africa that we stop this gross robbery by corrupt Africans and their partners in crime—some of the big oil companies whose business practices aid and abet the robbers.
	We can go a long way towards solving the problem if African countries and western oil companies simply publish their accounts as they are obliged to do in this country, America and France. If they simply said what they paid to the Governments of those countries and those Governments said what they received, the emerging democracies and politicians in those countries would have something to bite into. African Governments say many words about that issue, but with few exceptions—diamonds in Botswana have been mentioned—there is no transparency. The facts about oil and other resources are regarded as state secrets, and the term "state" means the politician who is control. In a recent report, the Catholic bishops of central Africa said:
	"Central Africa wallows in Misery despite the growing discoveries of oil".
	They also denounced the complicity of the oil companies and ruling politicians.
	Nothing would do more to improve governance in such countries than transparency of accounting. The fact is that politics in some African countries is a struggle to get into the food chain and feed at the trough. People go into politics to get rich by gaining access to a country's resources. A couple of years ago, a campaign was established—it was headed by George Soros and a wonderful London-based campaigning NGO, Global Witness, as well as 60 other NGOs from around the world—to end the cloak for corruption that is a feature of the failure to publish accounts. To their great credit, our own oil companies, Shell and BP, said that they would take up the approach. Of course, they needed the security of knowing that their rivals will play the game as well, or they would have been cut out of those markets. Indeed, I think that BP was threatened with that possibility in Angola.
	That campaign is called "Publish What You Pay". The Prime Minister, to his enormous credit, threw his weight behind it and launched a forum at Lancaster house in June. Among his duties, the present Secretary of State has inherited the responsibility of chairing the group that takes forward the policy—the extractive industries transparency initiative is hardly a catchy title, but I think that we know what it means. The proposal was taken to the G8 and there was general approval, but it then ran into the buffers of the American oil giants, which said that any agreement should be voluntary. That is nonsense; if it is voluntary, it is a dead duck. The chairman of Exxon's international operations stressed the importance of contractual obligations coming before disclosure. Chevron said that the process must remain voluntary and that disclosure would put it at a disadvantage to Government-owned corporations. The matter is dead simple: if the same rules apply to everybody and the World Bank and regulators in developed countries lay down rules of transparency, the approach can work. It is the crook who wants secrecy; the honest company has nothing to fear if everybody else has to be transparent.
	President Bush has said some promising words about helping Africa, but they will be hypocrisy if he allows American oil companies to act in partnership with political criminals to strip Africa of its natural resources. These companies are hugely powerful. Exxon has recently been negotiating with Chad, and its 2001 revenues were $191 billion, while Chad's gross domestic product was $1.4 billion. That is the difference in power.
	At one time, America had little interest in Africa, but increasing amounts of oil are coming from it. We are in a new version of the great game in which the powers are struggling for resources. The Americans are trying to get out of reliance on Saudi Arabia and west Africa is in the middle of an oil boom. I was astonished by the figures: 7 billion of an estimated 8 billion barrels of oil discovered last year were found off the west coast of Africa. West Africa now sends almost as much oil to the United States as Saudi Arabia. With that change comes military interest as well, but I do not have time to speak about that.
	Nigeria is the worst case of a country discovering oil and experiencing misery. Following the discovery of huge oilfields, per capita income fell by 23 per cent. since 1975. I watched with interest when democracy took over in Nigeria, but I have seen no further signs of transparency. When we went to Nigeria, it was hard for politicians to find out what was going on. In Angola, more than $1 billion—about a third of state income—disappears each year and cannot be accounted for.
	My favourite example of the relationship between the United States, its oil companies and African states is that of Equatorial Guinea. It is a tiny country of about 500,000 people—about a third the size of Northern Ireland—but it sits on oil. In Washington, almost within sight of the White House, there is a place called Dupont circle. There one will find Riggs bank, in which, it is alleged by the Los Angeles Times and corroborated by Global Witness, there is a bank account holding between $300 million and $500 million in the name of the President of Equatorial Guinea. That amount of money can only have come from Equatorial Guinea's oil resources, because oil represents 90 per cent. of its income. The dominant oil companies are Exxon and Chevron—American companies that reveal no information about their payments to that country. If they did, we would know about the route that the money followed. The President of Equatorial Guinea is therefore accused of huge money laundering in President Bush's neighbourhood bank, but there has been no sign of any attempt to find out whether that is the origin of the money.
	The magazine, New Internationalist, ranks the world's regimes from one star to five star. Five star is "excellent"; one star is "appalling". It gives Equatorial Guinea one star, saying that all power rests in the presidency and that the president has no political vision beyond self-enrichment, self-aggrandisement and ruthless repression. No one in this place would achieve that record. We used to treat Equatorial Guinea as a pariah state. It is said that around one third of its people have fled. When it had elections last year, the leaders of the three opposition parties were locked up in jail and President Obiang got 99 per cent. of the vote. That gives us a clue that something is wrong. Even the US Department of Energy reports strong evidence of Government misappropriation of the oil funds that represent 90 per cent. of the country's income.
	This is just a matter of willpower. It is not about finding resources, but about the G8, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund saying, "When you are a powerful western country, you cannot have relationships with the developing world that are not transparent." If the payments that were made by the big oil companies— whether ours, American or French—were made transparent, we could say where the money was going. I remember going to Nigeria with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). By that time, we should have been able to ask, "As there is now democracy, where are the schools and the health centres?"—but did we find anything? No. It is crucial that the resources of a country go to the people of that country: that is a simple principle on which people could unite. I know that the Minister will not have time to reply to these points in detail, but I hope that we can have a letter or a written statement on what progress is being made on the publish-what-you-pay initiative, because I think that we should hang on to this issue, and push it and push it.

Paul Marsden: This has been an excellent debate; it has been very measured and progressive. The only person with whom I would take issue is the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who seemed to flatter me by saying that those who cross the Floor of the House carry great power and influence when they do so. I cannot, however, take credit for the fact that the Liberal Democrats' ratings have gone up by some 10 points since I joined them.
	Africa is a vast continent, with a rich tapestry of sights and sounds in many cultures and societies. I want to focus my remarks on Malawi, a small country of some 10.7 million people. It is a Commonwealth member and a democracy. It is not perfect, but no democracy is. It is a wonderful country in terms of its geography and landscape, and it contains the fantastic Lake Malawi, the third largest lake in Africa. It also has the potential to be able to feed its own population, owing to the rich resources of natural water.
	The sad reality, however, is that Malawi comes 163rd out of 173 countries around the globe in terms of poverty. Two thirds of its people live below the commonly defined poverty line. Life expectancy is a mere 38 years, and the average income is some US$200 a year. Only about half the people have access to clean water, and about one in 10 youngsters under the age of five die because of the lack of clean water, medicines, and food in their bellies. Twenty-five per cent. of Malawi's children are malnourished, and 40 per cent. are illiterate.
	We have seen some improvements in Malawi over the past 18 months, as the effects of the famine that took thousands of lives have at last begun to be curtailed. I would be the first to congratulate the Government on giving an extra £37 million to Malawi in the past two years, which has helped to alleviate much of the poverty there. I give great credit to the Secretary of State and the Minister for their dedication and commitment to Malawi and to Africa generally—credit where credit is due.
	I hope, however, that the Minister will be able to address my concern that the annual report of the Department for International Development showed that, over and above the emergency funding, the basic balance for the aid budget to Malawi fell from £56 million to £42 million between 2001 and 2002. The estimated outturn for 2003 is back up to £52 million, but it is anticipated that for the next three years it will hold at only about £47 million. A country in such desperate straits needs a greater commitment and more help, and I hope that the Minister will genuinely take on board my views and look long and hard at that investment for aid.
	When President Mbeki gave an address on the New Partnership for Africa's Development on 31 October 2001, he set out the vision for Africa, saying:
	"The work has started to give meaning to a bold vision whose realisation will for us, at last, turn into reality the concept that all people are born equal and that all of us inhabit a global village."
	We need to ensure that we help him with that vision for Africa, but it is a long way off. I heard the far-sighted speech of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), but I think that it is about 100 years too soon to start talking about collecting taxes. Each day, some 20,000 children in Africa die because of the lack of clean water and basic medicines. We should give credit, as there are many Africans who contribute not through taxes, but with their bare hands. They build maternity units, schools and hospitals. They own the village right down to every brick that is laid.
	I visited Malawi in August 2002 and I saw for myself the energy, ingenuity and adaptability of those people—a fantastic people and, I have to say, a happy people who were laughing in the face of death, as famine was sweeping across their country. Hand in hand with the spectre of HIV/AIDS, which was taking some 250 people a day, although I think the number has increased, the famine formed a recipe for disaster. While the Government have done so much, a lot of my frustration, if not my anger, is focused on the European Union and, in particular, on America.
	America will spend $800 billion each year on arming itself and going to war, but it barely lifts a finger in many respects in terms of long-term aid. I will at least enter a caveat by congratulating President George Bush—credit where it is due—on committing some $9 billion for the next five years to combating AIDS. That is more than any other US President has committed, but it is the tip of the iceberg.
	I record my thanks to World Vision, the charity that helped to put together the tour round Malawi just over a year ago. I want to mention in particular John Mandere, Angela Falinya and Baldwin Chiyamwaka, who helped me to visit the regions of Mzuzu and Kayezi. There is so much doom and gloom, but I saw for myself the success stories, including farmers who were given a little help with seedlings and who could then double their crops on their farms so that they would not just be feeding themselves and their families, but expanding the farms, taking on labourers and selling their crops.
	I saw for myself women building maternity units. Previously, women had to give birth in a one-room mud hut—their front room—with nothing more than a rubber sheet and no pain killers. I saw for myself bore holes that were drilled down 30 m in just two or three days and which gave water to 2,000 people in one village. I saw for myself proud people who had built a pharmacy and who were distributing basic drugs for the first time ever.
	I saw for myself the yield improvements for many crops, which were achieved simply by taking together goat dung, straw and a little water, digging a hole and creating enough fertilizer for a field of crops to make a huge difference in terms of how many mouths could be fed.
	Towards the end of that week's trip, I went to Kanyopola in the charity's four-wheel drive jeep. That remote little village is some 40 or 50 km from Lilongwe, the capital. As we approached, about four or five children were playing outside the huts. When we disembarked, 150 people came out of the bush and sat in front of us. They were happy, because they had only ever seen jeeps arrive with food. Naturally, they assumed that we were turning up with sacks of maize. We were not.
	I had 150 people in front of me. I gave a speech, but I could offer them nothing except warm words. They were so desperate that they had sold their farming tools, their pots and pans and the clothes off their backs. They had nothing because of the drought and the famine. They were simply sitting and waiting to die, yet they were incredibly proud—I have to say that in honour of them.
	I turned to John, one of the charity workers, and said, "Why on earth are they here? In the west, we would be marching off to the towns and cities to find jobs and attempt to feed our families. They are just sitting here waiting to die." He said, "Yes, but their heritage and culture are here, Paul. If they go to Lilongwe, they will probably be raped or mugged. They will almost certainly die. They sit here in the hope that they can hold their families together and that food will eventually arrive."
	That village touched my heart. Babies were sitting on my knees, and I was surrounded by 40 or 50 more babies and toddlers. They were covered in scabies, they had pot bellies the size of footballs, and the cacophony as they all cried and screamed will stay with me for the rest of my life. It was simply unbearable.
	When I started to film the children with my camcorder, I turned round the LCD screen so that they could see themselves. The older ones, aged about 12, were smiling and waving as best they could because they could see themselves, but the younger ones were not. When I asked the charity worker why that was—most people wave at a camera—he said, "They do not recognise themselves, Paul. There has been no water for most of their lives, and it is in water that they see their reflections. They have no idea whose pictures these are." It was desperately, desperately sad, and that is why we must do so much more than we have so far.
	I went to see the British high commissioner. When I asked him where the food airlift was, he said "We are trying to build a railway line across Mozambique". I pay tribute to the DFID officials in Malawi, who have done a fantastic job, but it is frustrating to look in vain for the international collective willpower needed to break the cycle of poverty, deprivation and death that stalks the lands of Africa. We have the means, in the 21st century, and we could do it. We just need the political will. I say that particularly to the richest-ever nation on earth, America, but I also say it to the European Union. So much more has to be done.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), I should like the Government to produce a timetable for the dedication of the magic figure of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income to aid. That is not an end in itself, but it demonstrates a long-term commitment; and a large proportion of that aid must go to Africa.
	I welcome the International Monetary Fund's announcement in the past week of an extra $6.6 million for Malawi, but the fact that only last year Malawi had to repay debt of $89 million shows how pitiful progress has been in what could be a prosperous nation. It is rich in natural minerals, and it has the potential to deliver important agricultural products. It is an energetic people, it is a democracy, and it deserves more support.
	I do not want us to have debates like this year after year, in which we must again acknowledge the death and destruction that afflict the great continent of Africa. We could make a difference now. I hope that in the next few years we begin to see a massive turnaround, and a hugely increased sense of urgency in respect of the need to tackle Africa's problems once and for all.

David Chaytor: I welcome the opportunity to speak, however briefly. I shall make two points that build on what was said by two earlier speakers. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) spoke of the importance of oil in west Africa, and the increasing volumes of oil coming from it. I want to draw attention to the dangers that that will bring, in terms of geopolitical stability.
	Let me refer to a country that has not been mentioned so far today—an increasingly oil-rich country. I do not think that Cameroon has ever been the subject of debate, or has even been referred to during a debate, in my time in Parliament—or, I suspect, before that. The construction of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline and Cameroon's successful offshore oil claim against its much larger neighbour, Nigeria, focuses our attention on the pressures building up in west Africa. I want to bring to the House's and the Secretary of State's notice the dangers in that part of the world. In recent months, we have witnessed the events in Liberia, in Côte d'Ivoire and further round the coast in Sierra Leone; moreover, we know of the tensions in Nigeria. It is entirely conceivable that Cameroon will be the next flashpoint in that part of west central Africa, because of the pressure on natural resources—the pressure to extract oil—and on Cameroon's almost unique rain forest, which is one of the most precious virgin rain forests in the world.
	We must also consider the importance of good governance in any development strategy, an issue which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised. I want to draw the Secretary of State's attention to a report published by FIDH—the Paris-based, international human rights non-governmental organisation—on torture in Cameroon and the absence of basic standards of criminal justice. The combination of the pressure to extract natural resources, the lack of acceptable standards of governance, the oppression of minorities, and the systematic use of torture against ordinary criminals and political prisoners, is building up into a flashpoint that we ignore at our peril. In recent years, the international community has found it easy to ignore the warning signs in small countries in strategically important areas. Today provides an opportunity to look at these warning signs and to ensure that we avoid the mistakes that have been made before.
	I draw particular attention to the FIDH report on torture that was published just a few weeks ago. I accept that this issue is not primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of State for International Development, but I ask him to consider it and to discuss it with the Foreign Secretary. My understanding is that the United Nations committee against torture will convene in November, so here is an opportunity for the UK to play an important role in improving human rights in Cameroon by making representations about the complete lack of acceptability of torture as an instrument of the criminal justice system. It is also an opportunity to bring to the international stage the wider conflicts in Cameroon between the many different ethnic minorities, which speak many different languages, between the Muslims and the Christians, between those in the desert north and those in the tropical south, and in particular between the English-speaking minority and the French-speaking majority. Of course, Cameroon is one of very few countries with a French-speaking majority that happens to be a member of the Commonwealth, so the United Kingdom has—or ought to have—a particular interest in it. There is a sense among its English-speaking minority that the United Kingdom has not taken on that responsibility, or shown the level of care and interest that it might reasonably have been expected to show over a number of years.
	I want to tie together the relentless exploitation of natural resources and the dangers of the absence of good governance in Cameroon, and to draw to the House's attention the fact that Cameroon may prove, if not a new Côte d'Ivoire or Sierra Leone, a potential flashpoint that could destabilise the wider region. I should be very grateful if the Secretary of State would discuss Cameroon and look at his Department's role, alongside that of the Foreign Secretary, in strengthening human rights in that country.

Andrew Robathan: One of the difficulties of speaking at the end of a debate is that we have already heard many sensible speeches across the Chamber. I shall try not to repeat points that have already been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly said, this is not a partisan issue, and we have heard from members of the International Development Committee on both sides of the Chamber.
	I will briefly repeat what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said about welcoming the fact that the Secretary of State has been in his place throughout the debate, which encourages us all. I also want to welcome the Secretary of State on the occasion of his first debate in the House as Secretary of State for International Development. I found what he had to say upbeat, optimistic and uplifting. I did not agree with everything that he said, but he would not expect that. It was good to hear his optimism about the Sudan peace process and I hope that he is right. I do not, however, really share his optimism about the Congo.
	I visited the Congo two years ago with the all-party group, including the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). President Kabila told us then that he expected elections to take place within two years, but those two years have come and gone. I read Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", which many people have read, while I was there. It was written a century ago. I was greatly saddened to read Saturday's The Daily Telegraph, which described cannibalism in Ituri province. I recalled Kurtz's dying words, "The horror, the horror." We are now living in the 21st century, yet British and other journalists are living in an area where people are indulging in cannibalism.
	I base my speech largely on the three issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—AIDS, conflict and corruption. They are connected. Indeed, as the Secretary of State said, they are all, albeit not directly, development issues.
	We heard a great deal about AIDS from the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), and I agreed with almost everything that he said. The first time that I referred, as did the Secretary of State, to the black death, I was interrupted by Liberal Members for being racist. However, it is like the black death. In leaving schools without teachers and hospitals without doctors, it is exactly the same as the scourge that swept across Europe in medieval times. It is destroying all the development progress made over the past 40 years. As the hon. Member for City of York rightly pointed out, it is vastly reducing life expectancy. The worst prediction that I have heard from UNAIDS is that life expectancy in Botswana will be 27—younger than any hon. Member who has taken part in this debate—by 2010. I hope that the prediction is wrong.
	Antiretroviral treatment is terribly important, but the lesson to be learned from Uganda is that educational and behavioural change is the key to improving the situation. Having visited Botswana last year, I want to say that the way in which the Botswana Government behaved is magnificent. It is probably the richest country in southern Africa—certainly the richest per capita—and it is the best-governed country in southern Africa. As a result, it is giving antiretroviral treatment to anyone who wants and needs it.
	On the subject of conflict, reflecting on the heart of Africa says it all. As I said, I do not share all the Secretary of State's optimism. Many of the problems are interlinked. The Sudanese believe that the Ugandan Government have supported the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, so they have supported the Lord's Resistance Army, which is fighting in northern Uganda. It is abducting children—a ghastly business. The Ugandans, of course, invaded Rwanda to help Kagami to put out the last regime. The Rwandans and Ugandans then invaded the Congo to get rid of the Mobutu regime: they are still in the Congo, looting natural resources. The Zimbabweans are doing the same—making a fortune out of the natural resources of the Congo. It is all deeply interlinked, and deeply depressing.
	I shall not go through others on the list: one could go on through Liberia, Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Ethiopia. I have to say that money spent on arms and destruction should be spent on construction and development. What horrified me most on a visit to Angola in May this year was hearing from UNITA what the conflict in Angola was for. That conflict has gone on for about 26 years and millions of people have been killed in terrible destruction. What was it for? The people in UNITA said that they did not have any real ideological differences with the MPLA. They said that it was really about personalities and who had their noses in the trough. I find that deeply worrying and very cynical.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has only just taken his place and I have very little time, so I will not give way to him, even though we went to Angola together.
	Talking of Angola leads me to the subject of corruption, or what is euphemistically termed good governance. In Angola, former Marxists who seized power in 1975 are now making fortunes from the oil revenues from their country. Some $1 billion is unaccounted for, which is some 20 to 25 per cent. of the total oil revenue. Allegedly, it is going into the president's private bank account. Who knows? When BP tried to be transparent about the money it was paying, it was threatened with being kicked out of the country. It is a beautiful, fertile and rich country that is not overpopulated, but people are starving.
	We heard much about Nigeria from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. Nearly a quarter of black Africans live in Nigeria and two thirds of them live on less than $1 a day, in a country that has oil revenues of $18 billion. Where is it all going? We must all ask that question. A few years ago, a finance Minister in Kenya said to me—I remember his exact words—
	"Don't give us more money: ask us what we have done with the money you already gave us."
	We should all bear that in mind.
	Zimbabwe has an AIDS infection rate of between 25 and 33 per cent. Who knows? People are murdered daily by the regime and the corruption is self-evident. However, I remind the Secretary of State that last year our aid to Zimbabwe doubled to £29 million. As I said in my intervention in his speech, humanitarian aid is all very well, but it is being used as a tool of repression by the Zimbabwean Government. I urge him, as he kindly said he would in his reply to my intervention, to ensure that we monitor exactly what happens to our aid.
	My final points concern the great hope for the future—NEPAD—of which we have heard much today. The Prime Minister speaks warmly of NEPAD, but President Obasanjo of Nigeria, a former military dictator, is one of its leaders. Nigeria is the second most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International. What hope does that give us? We are told that NEPAD will include peer review. Well, the International Parliamentary Union was going to meet here at Westminster in March, but the Government—to their credit—refused to give visas to Zimbabweans, so African countries have pressured the IPU to move the meeting outside the United Kingdom. That is deeply depressing.
	We heard about South Africa from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). It refuses to press Mugabe to resign or to reverse his policies. However, NEPAD relies on peer review and leadership by those people. How much confidence does that give us? Is NEPAD wishful thinking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden suggested? Do African leaders see no evil and hear no evil? I hope that the Minister addresses that issue when he winds up.
	The Prime Minister called NEPAD
	"a real signal of hope for the future."—[Official Report, 1 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 23.]
	He applauded the presence of South Africa and Nigeria, but what evidence have we seen since of genuine desire to reform? Has Mbeki used his influence in Zimbabwe? Has Obasanjo prosecuted General Babangida, the former military dictator who lives off his looted wealth in great ostentation just outside Abuja? Are they the reforming African partners to whom the Prime Minister referred? I do not doubt the good faith of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Minister or the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), of whom I saw a great deal. However, we must ask whether British money is being well spent. Are our development policies working in Africa? Are the taxes of Mrs. Jones in Blaby and Mrs. Smith in Leeds being spent well and to good effect? I have seen much of the Department's work and my answer would be, "Yes, to a certain extent, and no, to a certain extent."

Tony Worthington: Just like a Liberal.

Andrew Robathan: Yes, I am sitting on the fence like a Liberal. Excellent people work for the Department and they work with excellent people in NGOs, both national and international. However, African leaders and people must address the development challenges, and the crises that have been described, through NEPAD or by other means. We can help, and we have a moral imperative to do so. We are helping, but I hope that the debate will stimulate the Government to do even more.

Gareth Thomas: Like the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I too believe that this has been an excellent debate. It will be difficult to do justice to the powerful contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), for Putney (Mr. Colman), for City of York (Hugh Bayley), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Thoughtful and interesting contributions were also made by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), for Banbury (Tony Baldry)—the Chairman of the Select Committee—for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden). I recognise that, as a result, I shall have to write to a number of hon. Members in order to respond to the specific questions that they raised.
	As just about all hon. Members noted, Africa faces a huge challenge in meeting the millennium development goals. That challenge is not insurmountable, but it requires that African nations commit themselves to reform, through NEPAD and the other processes of the African Union. At the same time, the developed world must alter fundamentally its relationship with Africa, and not just in terms of levels of aid. It must also tackle the range of policy constraints affecting Africa's development.
	There are major challenges to be faced. They include preventing conflict and achieving more effective post-conflict reconstruction, reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS—on which a number of hon. Members concentrated in their contributions—responding to globalisation, and achieving faster economic growth. We must also continue to improve the quality and effectiveness of governance.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend has touched on the issue of conflict and the need for western countries and aid donors to change their ways. Is he aware of the letter from Dr. Mohamed Ibn Chambas, the general secretary of ECOWAS, which was sent to his Department? In the letter, he writes:
	"Where guns dominate, development suffers."
	He urges the Government to go further with extraterritorial controls than is currently proposed.

Gareth Thomas: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall come to issues of conflict and the points that he raises in a moment.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in his opening speech, there are some powerful examples of good progress in Africa, but there are also too many example of countries where much more needs to be done. The lead has to be taken by African countries, but with the support of the international community.
	In 2000, there were 13 major conflicts in progress in Africa. That number has come down to just two at present. That does not mean that violent conflict is at an end, and many of the settlements in place are very fragile, but there is a real chance to build on the political processes generated by peace settlements in countries such as Angola, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Key partner countries such as Nigeria and Uganda still face significant internal problems that result in violence and death. It is clear, therefore, that we have more to do.
	In particular, we must take advantage of the new options presented by the African Union's new peace and security architecture. The union is now leading the first African mission in Burundi, with Ethiopian, South African and Mozambican troops taking part. Already, the union has also tabled plans for an African standby peacekeeping force.
	Clearly, it will be important that the member countries of the African Union ratify the peace and security council, so that the union has a clear mandate to build African capacity in order to prevent conflict in the region. We are spending a total of £110 million specifically on conflict management and prevention activities. Much of that amount is spent on UN operations, such as those that took place in the Congo. However, we are also working on security sector reform, reducing the prevalence of small arms and carrying out peace-building work. We shall consider the letter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) in that light.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of York, among other hon. Members, highlighted the horror of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In seven countries, all in southern Africa, 20 per cent. or more of the population has HIV/AIDS. The hon. Member for Blaby mentioned Botswana, where 38 per cent. of the population has the disease. About 29 million Africans are living with HIV/AIDS.
	The human impact of the disease is most powerfully illustrated by the fact that 11 million children under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS. In that context, the contribution of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was especially interesting. The epidemic certainly affects both rich and poor, but the poor are much more vulnerable to infection and much less able to cope with the disease.
	We are supporting African Governments so that they can deliver their commitments to improve health care and tackle HIV/AIDS. Our planned bilateral spending on HIV/AIDS programmes has risen from £38 million in 1997 to more than £270 million in this financial year, putting us second in international spending on the disease.
	The epidemic has fuelled the spread of tuberculosis and exacerbated the impact of malaria. As well as supporting country-level initiatives to control tuberculosis and malaria, we are working through international efforts such as "Stop TB" and "Roll Back Malaria" and, of course, the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. However, if we are to tackle all three diseases, as well as a whole range of other health issues, such as ensuring that the poor have greater accessibility to drugs, it is vital that health systems more generally be strengthened in Africa. Since 1997, we have committed more than £1.5 billion to help countries build and strengthen their health care systems.
	The hon. Members for Edinburgh, West and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) highlighted the fact that Cancun was a huge disappointment—as did the Chairman of the Select Committee. As I indicated in Westminster Hall last week, we are committed to trying to get the Doha development round back on track, to help African countries to enjoy the huge benefits that are on offer if we can secure fair trade rules.
	The hon. Member for Banbury gave an especially powerful example of the current unfairness of world trade rules—the level of cotton subsidies. World prices are depressed by at least 20 per cent., which costs west African cotton producers an estimated $250 million to $300 million each year. We are helping to support those west African nations in their campaign at the World Trade Organisation by giving about Euro50,000, with other nations. That will help their advocates to make their case; it is a small example from the £160 million that we have given to build trade capacity across the developing world. We are arguing in Europe for further, deeper reforms of EU cotton subsidies both to give a signal about Europe's commitment to Africa and to get the Doha development round back on track.
	Those are examples of real progress towards democracy and good governance in Africa, but as all hon. Members recognise, major challenges remain. When there are difficulties in particular countries, that is not the time for the international community to walk away; it is time to engage even more closely to support African-led solutions. That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that £1 billion of our aid goes to Africa by 2006. That is why we are working to promote the international finance facility to double world aid levels.
	Sadly, that is in stark contrast to the record and current agenda on the Conservative Front Bench. The Conservatives halved the percentage of gross national product allocated to overseas aid during their 18 years in power.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Gareth Thomas: I am afraid that I cannot give way at this point.
	Who could not fail to worry about the UK's response to Africa's challenge from a probable hard-right Conservative leader who is committed to public expenditure cuts of 20 per cent. across Government? Where would that leave this country's commitment to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic? How would that help our Government's commitment to ensuring that every child has a primary school place? How would that help us in building the capacity of African countries to resist terrorist attacks?
	On international development, I am afraid that there will be clear red water between our two parties at the next election. However, while we are in government we shall remain committed to ensuring that the millennium goals will be implemented.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [30 October].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 128) on Dealing with Disadvantage Grant, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Dentists

That the draft Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
	That Mr James Gray be discharged from the Broadcasting Committee and Gregory Barker be added.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Ordered,
	That, on Thursday 20th November, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Hugh Bayley: Having just returned from the International Development Committee's visit to Palestine and Israel, I am acutely aware not only of the desperate plight of the Palestinian people, but of the fact that there is no monopoly of right or wrong on either side and that both sides must stop the violence before a peace settlement can be found.
	Tonight, I present to the House the petition of the York group of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The group opposes the Israeli Government's use of military action against Palestinian civilians, notes that 2,500 Palestinians have been killed since September 2000, and calls for the indictment of the Prime Minister of Israel.
	The petition, which is signed by Monica Wusteman of York and 575 supporters of the York Palestine Solidarity Campaign, states:
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take steps to ensure that there is an end to the British government's arms trade with Israel and that trade sanctions are imposed until Israel ends its illegal occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and abides by international law and UN resolutions including the removal of illegal settlements, and implementation of the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
	To lie upon the Table.

Television Services

Peter Duncan: I take great pleasure in presenting to the House a petition of several hundred of my constituents who expressed concern about the limited availability of analogue television services in my constituency and the failure to expand the availability of digital television services.
	The petition states:
	The petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway declares that access to the licence fee funded Freeview service is virtually non-existent in the region, and that terrestrial television transmission provides a restricted choice of channels.
	The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to take the necessary action to ensure that DTV Service upgrades transmitters throughout the region in order to facilitate reception of all available terrestrial channels and digital services on Freeview.
	To lie upon the Table.

WESTERN CIRCUIT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Jim Knight: I am very pleased to have secured this debate, although the situation has moved on considerably since I applied for it, as I shall explain as my speech unfolds.
	The debate is about access to justice, particularly for my constituents in Dorset. In the foreword to the access to justice White Paper, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the then Lord Chancellor, said:
	"The justice system should serve everyone, regardless of their means. People should be able to find effective solutions to their legal problems. Justice must not be restricted to the very wealthy, who can well afford high legal fees, or the very poor, who may qualify for legal aid."
	Those words apply as much now as they did then. We are talking about equal access regardless of wealth, but that also means equal access regardless of geography, which is why the reorganisation of our courts system is so important. We must ensure that witnesses called to appear in court, jurors serving the court and, equally, defendants appearing in court have access to local justice.
	I was pleased that, earlier this year, I was able to meet the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to discuss my concerns about the reorganisation of magistrates courts in Dorset. We discussed the effects on our rural county of closing little-used courts in towns such as Wareham. If that proposal goes ahead, my constituents in Swanage will have to travel to Poole or Bournemouth to access magistrates. For defendants without private transport, that means an hour-long bus journey to either place that costs £5.75 for a return fare. It is not relevant to re-rehearse that discussion now, but it serves to show that when we discuss access to justice, geography and rurality is relevant. People in a town such as Swanage, which is poorly served by a whole range of services, incur significant cost in time and fares to access our courts.
	However, I welcome the progress that the Government have made in this area. Ministers have recognised that our justice system needs to be reformed. Currently, the House of Lords is delaying the Criminal Justice Bill, which will, for example, rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim, witnesses and the community to reduce crime and bring more offenders to justice. The Courts Bill makes provisions that will allow the Government to replace magistrates courts committees and the court service with a single executive agency responsible for the administration of all courts below the House of Lords. It ends the current division between the 42 magistrates courts committees and the court service. Again, I have no desire to re-rehearse the debates on the Courts Bill, which has been through its stages in the House, but some aspects were debated on Report that merit closer examination in this debate. I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) in the Chamber, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised at column 413 the issue of proposed changes to the western circuit.
	At this point I must apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I mistakenly gave the name of the circuit as the Wessex circuit when I applied for this debate. Such is my enthusiasm for regionalism that I got carried away in using the old regional titles for something as established and historic as the western circuit. The circuit has been in existence in roughly its present form since the King's Justices first went out on assize in medieval times. Its three main centres have always been Winchester, Bristol and Exeter. Indeed, Winchester, as we all know, was the original capital of Wessex.
	On Report of the Courts Bill, to which I referred earlier, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome discussed the letter sent to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole by his honour Judge John Beashel. I also received a similar letter from the judge, in which he raised concerns about the proposals to remove Winchester from the western circuit and to place it in the south-eastern circuit. He argued that the current arrangements work well and that without Winchester the circuit would not have sufficient business to sustain a viable high-quality circuit. The justification for the change would be to achieve coterminosity with the Government regions, which in almost all other respects place Hampshire in the south-east and the rest of the western circuit in the south-west.
	As I have said, I am an avowed advocate of regional government. I am pleased that the Government are now starting to delegate more responsibility to regional and local level and I am keen to see those regional decisions made accountable through regional government. I was concerned, however, that it appeared to practitioners, from the Lord Chief Justice downwards, that this was a proposed reorganisation driven more by bureaucratic convenience than by improvement. We need to demonstrate clearly the gains if we are to proceed. Government policy is that the regional boundaries used by Departments should follow those of the nine English Government offices of the regions and Wales, except in exceptional circumstances. Regional offices will be joining up government at regional level, including strong involvement in spending reviews. I appreciate that the Government did not want courts to be left behind in this process.
	First and foremost, however, we need to ensure that local justice works for the witnesses, the victims and the local people. Proposals for re-alignment under the Courts Bill make sense and fit well with Government plans for regional government. However, the delivery of an effective justice system serving the needs of local people must not be compromised merely to achieve administrative efficiency. That is why I was so delighted to receive a letter from the Minister by fax last Thursday that made a decision on the future of Hampshire in the new unified courts administration. Remarkably, the letter was written on the very day that I secured this debate. I pay great tribute to the Minister for responding with such lightning speed to the mere suggestion of the debate. The debate was announced on Thursday morning and the fax had arrived in my office by 1.30 pm. I applaud the Minister not only for his agility, but for listening to representations that have been made on the issue.
	The Minister's letter says:
	"We have focussed on what produces the best justice system for the public in the two regions."
	He continues:
	"We acknowledge that making a change at this stage would raise a number of potentially difficult issues for the Judiciary and the Bar, which could impact on the administration of justice for the public. In addition we have received representations from partner criminal justice agencies locally to the effect that from their perspective change would not bring significant benefit."
	The letter concludes by saying:
	"We have decided not to realign Hampshire and the Isle of Wight at this time."
	That is a victory for common sense. I am sure that there were celebrations at that news this weekend throughout Somerton and Frome—led by its hon. Member.
	That must not be the end of the story because two issues remain. First, the decision will be reviewed in 2006–07 and, secondly, and most importantly for my constituents, there is a question of whether we can do better in terms of access for justice for serious crimes in Dorset.
	The Minister's letter says:
	"We have decided that in order to provide a better service for court users in Dorset that, subject to the views of the Senior Judiciary, Bournemouth Crown Court should become a first tier centre."
	That is potentially great news for Dorset because it means all crime will be heard locally. It means that the witnesses, jurors, and defendants to whom I referred earlier will all be able to access the courts easily.
	I have already told you, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the time and cost to my constituents of getting to Bournemouth by public transport. Getting to Winchester court is yet another challenge. Naturally, there is no direct bus or train service from Swanage to Winchester, so one has to get the bus to Bournemouth and a non-connecting train to Winchester, which takes more than an hour and costs almost £12 return. The cost of accessing justice for my Swanage constituents who use the Winchester court is therefore almost £17, and four hours of their time is taken each day that they attend. Will the Minister give some detail on the pledge to bring justice closer to the good people of Dorset by hearing serious crimes in Bournemouth?
	When can we expect certainty on the announcement? The Minister said that it is subject to the senior judiciary. If they view the proposal as part of a longer-term strategy to allow the western circuit to be sustainable without Winchester, they might resist it. I encourage the Minister to resist them, if that is the case. The enhancement of the Bournemouth court will increase the capacity of the courts throughout the south of England and improve access. It should therefore mean that cases would be heard more quickly and justice would speed up in what is currently a very busy part of the courts system. In order to achieve that, we would need to ensure that more professionals work on the circuit in time. I would be interested to find out what steps the Minister and the Department are taking to achieve that so that the extra capacity can genuinely be capitalised upon.
	A series of other questions follow from this exciting proposal. Assuming that the Minister goes ahead with this proposal, how soon does he think that we can proceed? Are there physical constraints relating to the court buildings in Bournemouth? What sort of development would be required, and how would such development relate to the reorganisation of the magistrates courts in Dorset? I appreciate that he might not be able to answer all those questions now, although I shall be delighted if he can, but I know that he and his officials will be listening carefully, so I would be happy to receive answers in due course.
	The other key question is about the review in 2006–07 to which the Minister referred in his statement. What work will the Department for Constitutional Affairs undertake to prepare for such a review? If no work were done, what would have changed in the next few years? Would it not be sensible to ensure that the south-east could cope with the addition of a busy court such as Winchester and, in turn, that the addition of Bournemouth would provide sufficient work to sustain a new western circuit without Hampshire because the Minister would then have a genuine choice? I am aware that a similar anomaly will exist between Cheshire and north Wales. Will the Minister encourage change to allow coterminosity with the government regions or will the Department remain neutral?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not have too much of a replay of the Courts Bill, although clearly some reference to it is acceptable.

Jim Knight: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will refrain from that.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue. Access to justice is at the heart of much of the Government's good work. It is no doubt apparent that I expected to use a different tone in the debate when I first applied for it. I expected to be pleading for improved access to justice for Dorset in the medium to long term and for common sense in relation to the western circuit in the short term. As a result of receiving the highly efficient fax from the Minister's office last Thursday, I have been able to make a different speech. He can tell that I am excited about the potential of his proposals for Bournemouth. He has listened to the representations on Winchester. I now ask him to listen to them on behalf of Dorset, to press ahead with those proposals and to use this opportunity to give the House more detail than he gave in last week's statement.

Christopher Leslie: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) on his success in securing this timely debate on the organisation of the courts and the western circuit. He explained why he needed to change the debate's title from Wessex circuit to western circuit. I could spend some time delving into the different definitions of what is Wessex and whether it is the same as the south-west and so on, but I do not want to waste time.
	My hon. Friend noted that faxes winged their way to him on the day his Adjournment debate was selected, but I assure him that the timing of the debate was unconnected to the decision taken. However, his advocacy of the case was very much part of the process. His arguments to me, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs were important and it is right to respond to them. Responding positively reflects the quality of his arguments. As my hon. Friend observed, we reached a decision on the organisation of the south-west region of the planned new courts agency. I am glad that our decision meets with his approval. I suspect that it will also meet with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised the issue in the Chamber and privately with me, as well as with many members of the judiciary and the legal services community, who have been vocal in their arguments on the subject.
	It might help if I set out a bit of the history of how we went about planning the structure of the proposed agency. In our White Paper "Justice for All", the Government set out their intention to establish a new organisation responsible for the administration of all the courts in England and Wales below the House of Lords. We are implementing a programme to integrate those courts in England and Wales into a single executive agency, as my hon. Friend explained. That will be a major change programme, creating an agency of 20,000 staff engaging with a judicial work force of more than 30,000 and with a budget of about £1 billion. Bringing 43 separate organisations into one with a common management and culture will be a major leadership and change management challenge.
	There are many benefits to the new agency. Briefly, it will involve better performance, better management and better use of resources; a more joined-up criminal justice system; a narrowing of the gap between offences recorded and offenders brought to justice; and a more developed stronger focus on the standards of service and modern methods of delivering services in all courts. The focus of our work is to create an organisation that is more responsive to better public service objectives and the needs of the courts' customers, victims and witnesses.
	There are, of course, organisational issues to settle. In the court service, the Crown court and county courts are located in six different regions, known as circuits, each headed by a regional manager, called a circuit administrator. Magistrates courts, on the other hand, are run by 42 independent magistrates courts committees. They are coterminous with criminal justice, police authority and Crown Prosecution Service areas.
	We have decided that there should be 42 local management units when the agency is first established. That is because all the other criminal justice agencies are configured in that way. However, in the new unified courts agency, we want a regional management tier, similar to the circuit arrangements. A regional tier will help to facilitate a more collegiate approach between areas and the handling of local and regional issues. It will also enable the dissemination of best practice to raise standards and provide a strong leadership capacity, which will be especially important during the transition to the new agency, when we will have to forge a new organisation and culture.
	Civil trial and family care centres, as well as specialist jurisdictions such as chancery and mercantile business, draw work from across criminal justice boundaries to provide specialist facilities and a critical mass of cases. There is a need for the mechanism to be regionally based to move such work across the boundaries of the 42 areas.
	Compared with the magistrates courts, the case load of the Crown court, county courts and specialist courts is more complex and volatile, so a regional tier is needed to provide an overview to match resources to need. That would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve from national headquarters. In addition, deployment of the full and part-time professional judiciary will be better managed at a level above local management units.
	Having decided the principle that it is necessary to have a regional level of organisation, we then had to think about the boundaries of those regions. Of course, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Government's clearly stated policy is that regional boundaries should match those of the nine Government office regions and Wales, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. The Government last reaffirmed that principle in last year's White Paper on the regional agenda, and we believe that it will impact more and more on the work of the courts because they are a part of the wider public service community.
	The regional offices will increasingly be joined up with other Government services at a regional level. We do not want the courts to be left behind in that, and many of our justice partners—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, the national probation service, the Prison Service and, informally, the Crown Prosecution Service—are already aligning with the Government office regions. The courts have been an anomaly, and that is one reason that the issue has evolved in this way.
	The Crown and county courts are currently organised around the circuits, which had their origin in the historic tours of duty that judges, their key officials and members of the Bar undertook, setting out from London at regular intervals to oversee the different regions. Over the centuries, the circuits varied from time to time, but until the Beeching reforms and subsequent Courts Act 1971, they continued to be based on groupings of counties. The reforms left the circuit boundaries relatively untouched, and the current court service organised itself on a regional basis corresponding with them.
	The circuit boundaries are coterminous with those of the Government office regions, with two exceptions. First, the Wales and Chester and the western circuits broadly correspond with Wales and the south-west region, but the former also includes Cheshire, from the north-west region, and the latter includes Hampshire from the south-east region.
	Dealing first with Wales and Chester, there are practical issues concerning the way in which court work is administered in north Wales and Cheshire, so we have decided to keep the link between them for now. We would like, however, to review that position in the financial year 2006–07 as part of a general post-implementation review of the agency's working arrangements. We believe that at that point there may well be compelling reasons for moving Cheshire into line with the region covered by the Government office for the north-west and to align the courts in Wales with the National Assembly.
	For Hampshire, which is largely the subject of the debate, we had to decide whether it should be included in the south-east, in line with the Government office, or with the south-west, in line with the current western circuit. We focused on what produces the best justice system for the public in those two regions. I am aware that the western circuit of the Bar is strong and plays an important role in providing training for members of the Bar, among other things. The circuits work well for the judiciary and the Bar, but we wanted to ensure that the public were best served by the arrangements, and were at the centre of our thinking. We received and considered carefully a number of representations about the location of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in the structure of the new courts agency.
	I acknowledge that making a change now may raise a number of difficult issues for the judiciary and the Bar that could impact on the administration of justice for the public. Moreover, we received representations, as my hon. Friend pointed out, from partner criminal justice agencies locally to the effect that, from their perspective, change would not at present bring significant benefits. On balance and after a great deal of careful thought, there is insufficient merit at this time in adopting the policy of realigning the western circuit with the regional government boundary. Although the policy of aligning the courts administration with the boundaries of other government services is important and can have significant benefits for the administration of justice, we have concluded that, for now, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight should not be aligned with the south-east.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister outline the factors that need to change for a different decision to be made in 2006?

Christopher Leslie: As I have explained in, I hope, a logical sequence, there is a need for a regional management structure within the new unified courts administration. Given that arrangement, we would normally be predisposed to see whether it is possible to realign the boundaries with those of the relevant Government office for the regions to achieve the good administrative practice of coterminous services cutting across other public service boundaries. The regional agenda is clearly developing, as I have said, and it is prudent to keep the matter under review according to the time scale that I have set out.
	We have listened carefully to the views of hon. Members and others who have made a case for the current structures, and whose arguments have been thorough and detailed. We have responded to their concerns, paid attention to worries and taken note of the success of current working arrangements, all of which has helped to inform the decision. Nevertheless, the regional agenda is developing, and there may well be a much clearer case for realignment later, so we will reconsider the issue in 2006–07.
	My hon. Friend pressed me on the issues affecting his constituents in Dorset. In the course of studying and reviewing the particular circumstances of the organisation of the justice system in the south-west and south-east, it became clear that the distribution of court business across Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire needed to be improved, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The exercise identified the fact that, subject to the views of the senior judiciary, we could provide a better service for court users in Dorset if Bournemouth Crown court became a "first-tier centre" so that serious cases from Dorset could be tried more conveniently. There may be clear benefits for victims and witnesses in the area from upgrading Bournemouth to a first-tier centre, so the Government intend to investigate the possibility of achieving that. My hon. Friend pressed me on time scales and so on. I shall endeavour to establish a firmer timetable for the plans, and shall look closely at the question of buildings and facilities, as well as other issues that he raised.
	While I recognise that many of the representations on the boundaries of the western court circuit have been made by people who work within the existing framework, it is essential that the Government take a fresh look at the arrangements from time to time to ensure that the needs of the public in the justice system remain paramount. We have concluded this matter for the time being but, as I have said, the greater need for a well-organised, cross-cutting and integrated criminal justice system able to work readily with other public services remains an important part of our reform agenda, hence the decision that has been made. I am glad to have the opportunity to put on record my appreciation for the strong case made by my hon. Friend, and my thanks to other hon. Members who have given the matter diligent scrutiny.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.